NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney

    The antisemitism strategy presented to the Albanese government has attracted considerable – and wholly justifed – criticism.

    Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy. This is due to its biased arguments, weak evidence and recommendation overreach.

    There is also the adoption of a contentious definition of antisemitism which has been criticised for conflating disapproval of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.

    Alternative definition

    The strategy uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, manifestations of which could include criticising the state of Israel.

    However, this definition is contentious – so much so that its original author, Kenneth Stern, has rejected it as a tool for regulating antisemitism due its potential to be weaponised to silence free speech.

    Other widely used definitions are unacknowledged in the report. These include the Jerusalem Declaration, which attempts to strike a better balance between antisemitism and freedom of speech, including criticism of Israel and Zionism.

    As the declaration notes:

    hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the state.

    Biased Argument

    The report presents a clear and consistent argument: antisemitism has been on the rise in Australia, especially since the Hamas attacks in October 2023. It is particularly obvious in universities and cultural institutions.

    Antisemitism is an insidious form of prejudice and hatred which is destructive not only to the Jewish community, but to the very fabric of Australian society. It requires a community-wide response to stamp it out.

    The report is underpinned by Segal’s principled aspiration to ensure “all Australians, including Jewish Australians, can live with dignity, fairness, safety and mutual respect”.

    But there are multiple problems with how this argument is presented.

    First, it is sweeping in its application. A good example is the claim antisemitism “has become ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space”.

    No explanation is given to what these terms mean, or what these practices entail. Without such qualifiers, readers could easily be misguided in thinking the problem is more pronounced than it actually is.

    Weak evidence

    The report provides alarming statistics about the rise in reported cases of antisemitism in Australia, including a claimed 316% spike in the 12 months to October 2024.

    It pays particular attention to antisemitism in the university sector, quoting a survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which noted more than 60% of Jewish students who experienced antisemitism felt unsupported by their institutions.

    No doubt there has been a surge in antisemitic hatred, but there are significant problems with how evidence for it is presented in the report. Segal fails to
    produce a single citation, which makes it impossible to access the data and assess its veracity.

    Baseline figures, details about who collated the data, the investigation of incidents and their resolution, are all missing.

    The report also misquotes an important source.

    It states “in February 2025, ASIO Director General Mike Burgess declared antisemitism is Australia’s leading threat to life”.

    In fact, what Burgess actually said was:

    In terms of threats to life, it’s my agency’s number one priority because of the weight of incidents we’re seeing play out in this country.

    There are subtle yet important differences in these two statements, which need to be carefully parsed when dealing with such a serious issue.

    Gaza ignored

    Also problematic is the singular focus on extremist ideologies as the reason for the rise in antisemitism.

    In doing so, the strategy omits a compelling fact: the recent upsurge is likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza which has resulted in mass Palestinian civilian casualties over the past 20 months.

    As international law expert Ben Saul argues:

    People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period. [It was fuelled by] fury at Israel’s profound violations of international law in Gaza.

    Furthermore, while Segal claims to be focused on mutual respect, she fails to acknowledge other groups that face similar forms of racism and discrimination, including Australia’s Indigenous peoples and Islamic communities.

    In doing so, the report appears to be seeking special treatment for the Australian Jewish community.

    Recommendation overreach

    Much of the negative reaction to the report has rightly been focused on its far-reaching punitive recommendations, which have been described as Trumpian.

    Many are directed towards the education sector, including threatened cuts to school and university funding, and extending the capacity to terminate staff who engage in “antisemitic” behaviours.

    Segal envisages creating a “university report card” to adjudicate on universities that are failing the standard, presumably set against her preferred antisemitism definition.

    The media and the cultural sector more broadly are also in Segal’s headlights, with recommendations to establish herself as a media monitor to ensure “fair and balanced reporting”. Charitable institutions deemed to be supporting antisemitism would lose their tax-deduction status.

    These highly controversial measures are an overreach of the envoy’s terms of reference.

    Segal’s mandate specifies her role is as an advisor to government, not a regulator. By taking such a drastic approach, the antisemitism strategy risks stoking further social division.

    The government, which is considering the recommendations, must proceed very cautiously.

    Louise Chappell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start – https://theconversation.com/antisemitism-plan-fails-on-a-number-of-fronts-a-contentious-definition-of-hate-is-just-the-start-261082

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Howe, Associate Dean (Research), Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

    Anna Kraynova/Shutterstock

    A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up after closing, but never receive overtime. They feel exploited, but what can they do?

    It’s hard to find a job that fits with study commitments, and a reference could go a long way in the future. Besides, it happens to all their co-workers; they’d hate to cause a fuss.

    It’s a story as old as time, and it’s still happening today. Our new study has found wage exploitation is rife among employers who hire young people.

    In partnership with the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Melbourne Law School’s Fair Day’s Work project surveyed 2,814 workers under 30.

    Young workers in low-paid jobs were asked about their experiences in the workplace, the challenges they encountered, and how they dealt with exploitation.

    How some bosses are treating young workers

    We found young Australians are frequently underpaid and that exploitation is multifaceted:

    • 33% were paid $15 per hour or less

    • 43% had been told to complete extra work without additional pay

    • 34% were not paid for work during a trial period

    • 24% had not received compulsory super

    • 35% had their timesheet hours reduced by their employer

    • 17.9% had not been paid for all the work they completed

    • 9% received an hourly rate of $10 or less

    • 8% had been forced to return some, or all, of their pay to their employer.

    Further, 60% had had to pay for work-related items, such as uniforms, protective equipment, training or car fuel. Some 36% had been forbidden to take entitled breaks while 35% had their recorded timesheet hours reduced by their employer. Meanwhile 20% were “sometimes” paid “off the books”, and 12% were “always” paid off the books. And 9.5% had been given food or products instead of being paid in money.

    The most at risk

    We found exploitation is most often experienced by the most vulnerable young people. These include transgender, non-permanent workers (casual employees and private contractors), residents on temporary visas) and non-native English speakers.

    The worst-performing industries included electricity, gas, water and waste services; manufacturing; mining; transport, postal and warehousing; public administration and safety; information media and telecommunications; accommodation and food services; retail trade, and education and training.

    Workers in small businesses (up to 19 staff) were often not paid overtime or penalty rates, and were being paid “off the books”.

    Medium-sized business workers (20–199 employees) were the most likely to be required to pay for work-related items, such as equipment, training and car hire.

    And those from large businesses (200-plus) reported the highest rates of variance of weekly hours and requirements to pay for work uniform.

    Young people often don’t have much industrial knowledge or experience, so it is easy for employers to take advantage of them. They are also unlikely to challenge an employer, as many of them are in insecure work.

    What steps are being taken?

    Laws which took effect January 1 this year mean employers may face criminal penalties – including fines, imprisonment or both – if they intentionally underpay an employee in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.

    But identifying underpayments and other forms of exploitation are the biggest barrier to compliance with workplace laws.

    Surveyed workers who were underpaid said they were most likely to seek the help of a family member. Only 12.9% of those aged 15 to 19 said they would be willing to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

    However, workers who had dealt with the ombudsman mostly saw their experiences as positive: 41% found the regulator to be “very helpful”, while only 16.7% described it as “not helpful at all” or “not very helpful”.

    The results suggest the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to be doing more to engage teenage workers.

    What’s needed

    The Fair Day’s Work project set out to use data science and technology to identify risk of underpayment in relation to young workers, and improve employer compliance with workplace laws.

    Our aim was to develop a database on young workers employment conditions, along with a web portal to give young people and employers the information they need.

    We hypothesised that a prediction tool could be used to assess which young workers are at greatest risk. However, we found publicly available data was insufficient to do this, so we conducted our own survey of young workers and made this data available through a public web portal to help workers and employers.

    We came up six recommendations to help stop young workers being exploited:

    1. regulators need to get tougher with the nine industries we identified as the poorest performers to make them more compliant

    2. the Fair Work Ombudsman should scrutinise the industries where payment was made in food or products and workers were required to return money to employers occurred most frequently

    3. educate mid-sized businesses on the extent to which they can lawfully require workers to pay for work-related items

    4. lawmakers and the Fair Work Commission should consider introducing truly equitable “loaded rates” for junior employees. This would deal with non-payment of penalty rates and other entitlements by some employers

    5. more money to make young workers aware they can get help from the Fair Work Ombudsman, trade unions, community legal centres, the Young Workers’ Centre and similar bodies

    6. more work to develop and use data science and digital tools to help employers fulfil their legal obligations, and to protect young workers’ rights.

    Our survey results highlight the extent to which young people continue to be exploited in the workplace and suggest more work needs to be done to bring about change.

    John Howe receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

    Tom Dillon receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

    – ref. Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super – https://theconversation.com/almost-half-of-young-workers-expected-to-work-unpaid-overtime-while-a-quarter-arent-paid-compulsory-super-261016

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Howe, Associate Dean (Research), Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

    Anna Kraynova/Shutterstock

    A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up after closing, but never receive overtime. They feel exploited, but what can they do?

    It’s hard to find a job that fits with study commitments, and a reference could go a long way in the future. Besides, it happens to all their co-workers; they’d hate to cause a fuss.

    It’s a story as old as time, and it’s still happening today. Our new study has found wage exploitation is rife among employers who hire young people.

    In partnership with the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Melbourne Law School’s Fair Day’s Work project surveyed 2,814 workers under 30.

    Young workers in low-paid jobs were asked about their experiences in the workplace, the challenges they encountered, and how they dealt with exploitation.

    How some bosses are treating young workers

    We found young Australians are frequently underpaid and that exploitation is multifaceted:

    • 33% were paid $15 per hour or less

    • 43% had been told to complete extra work without additional pay

    • 34% were not paid for work during a trial period

    • 24% had not received compulsory super

    • 35% had their timesheet hours reduced by their employer

    • 17.9% had not been paid for all the work they completed

    • 9% received an hourly rate of $10 or less

    • 8% had been forced to return some, or all, of their pay to their employer.

    Further, 60% had had to pay for work-related items, such as uniforms, protective equipment, training or car fuel. Some 36% had been forbidden to take entitled breaks while 35% had their recorded timesheet hours reduced by their employer. Meanwhile 20% were “sometimes” paid “off the books”, and 12% were “always” paid off the books. And 9.5% had been given food or products instead of being paid in money.

    The most at risk

    We found exploitation is most often experienced by the most vulnerable young people. These include transgender, non-permanent workers (casual employees and private contractors), residents on temporary visas) and non-native English speakers.

    The worst-performing industries included electricity, gas, water and waste services; manufacturing; mining; transport, postal and warehousing; public administration and safety; information media and telecommunications; accommodation and food services; retail trade, and education and training.

    Workers in small businesses (up to 19 staff) were often not paid overtime or penalty rates, and were being paid “off the books”.

    Medium-sized business workers (20–199 employees) were the most likely to be required to pay for work-related items, such as equipment, training and car hire.

    And those from large businesses (200-plus) reported the highest rates of variance of weekly hours and requirements to pay for work uniform.

    Young people often don’t have much industrial knowledge or experience, so it is easy for employers to take advantage of them. They are also unlikely to challenge an employer, as many of them are in insecure work.

    What steps are being taken?

    Laws which took effect January 1 this year mean employers may face criminal penalties – including fines, imprisonment or both – if they intentionally underpay an employee in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.

    But identifying underpayments and other forms of exploitation are the biggest barrier to compliance with workplace laws.

    Surveyed workers who were underpaid said they were most likely to seek the help of a family member. Only 12.9% of those aged 15 to 19 said they would be willing to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

    However, workers who had dealt with the ombudsman mostly saw their experiences as positive: 41% found the regulator to be “very helpful”, while only 16.7% described it as “not helpful at all” or “not very helpful”.

    The results suggest the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to be doing more to engage teenage workers.

    What’s needed

    The Fair Day’s Work project set out to use data science and technology to identify risk of underpayment in relation to young workers, and improve employer compliance with workplace laws.

    Our aim was to develop a database on young workers employment conditions, along with a web portal to give young people and employers the information they need.

    We hypothesised that a prediction tool could be used to assess which young workers are at greatest risk. However, we found publicly available data was insufficient to do this, so we conducted our own survey of young workers and made this data available through a public web portal to help workers and employers.

    We came up six recommendations to help stop young workers being exploited:

    1. regulators need to get tougher with the nine industries we identified as the poorest performers to make them more compliant

    2. the Fair Work Ombudsman should scrutinise the industries where payment was made in food or products and workers were required to return money to employers occurred most frequently

    3. educate mid-sized businesses on the extent to which they can lawfully require workers to pay for work-related items

    4. lawmakers and the Fair Work Commission should consider introducing truly equitable “loaded rates” for junior employees. This would deal with non-payment of penalty rates and other entitlements by some employers

    5. more money to make young workers aware they can get help from the Fair Work Ombudsman, trade unions, community legal centres, the Young Workers’ Centre and similar bodies

    6. more work to develop and use data science and digital tools to help employers fulfil their legal obligations, and to protect young workers’ rights.

    Our survey results highlight the extent to which young people continue to be exploited in the workplace and suggest more work needs to be done to bring about change.

    John Howe receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

    Tom Dillon receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

    – ref. Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super – https://theconversation.com/almost-half-of-young-workers-expected-to-work-unpaid-overtime-while-a-quarter-arent-paid-compulsory-super-261016

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University

    Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.

    The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.

    Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.

    What the preliminary report does say

    What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.

    According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

    The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.

    The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.

    This is what the fuel switches look like, with the throttle lever above them.
    Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau

    Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.

    The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.

    We don’t know what the pilots did

    Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.

    While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.

    In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.

    We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.

    As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.

    We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots

    Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:

    In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

    This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.

    Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.

    What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

    We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure

    The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.

    This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.

    What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.

    This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.

    Why we must resist premature conclusions

    In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.

    It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.

    The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.

    This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.

    Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.

    – ref. Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet – https://theconversation.com/was-the-air-india-crash-caused-by-pilot-error-or-technical-fault-none-of-the-theories-holds-up-yet-261102

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Hughes, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne

    A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee.

    This is not only important for Cambodia, but also raises important questions for atrocity sites in Australia.

    Before this, the World Heritage list only recognised seven “sites of memory” associated with recent conflicts, which UNESCO defines as “events having occurred from the turn of the 20th century” under its criterion vi. These sat within a broader list of more than 950 cultural sites.

    In recent years, experts have intensely debated the question of whether a site associated with recent conflict could, or should, be nominated and evaluated for World Heritage status. Some argue such listings would contradict the objectives of UNESCO and its spirit of peace, which was part of the specialised agency’s mandate after the destruction of two world wars.

    Sites associated with recent conflicts can be divisive. For instance, when Japan nominated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, both China and the United States objected and eventually disassociated from the decision. The US argued the nomination lacked “historical perspective” on the events that led to the bomb’s use. Meanwhile, China argued listing the property would not be conducive for peace as other Asian countries and peoples had suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WWII.

    Heritage inscriptions risk reinforcing societal divisions if they conserve a particular memory in a one-sided way.

    Nonetheless, the World Heritage Committee decided in 2023 to no longer preclude such sites for inscription. This was done partly in recognition of how these sites may “serve the peace-building mission of UNESCO”.

    Shortly after, three listing were added: the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a former clandestine centre for detention, torture and extermination in Argentina; memorial sites of the Rwandan genocide at Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; and funerary and memory sites of the first world war in Belgium and France.

    A number of legacy sites associated with Nelson Mandela’s human rights struggle in South Africa were also added last year.

    Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge

    The recently inscribed Cambodian Memorial Sites include prisons S-21 (now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum) and M-13, as well as the execution site Choeung Ek.

    These sites were nominated for their value in showing the development of extreme mass violence in relation to the security system of the Khmer Rouge in 1975–79. They also have value as places of memorialisation, peace and learning.

    The Khmer Rouge developed its methods of disappearance, incarceration and torture of suspected “enemies” during the civil conflict of 1970–75. It established a system of local-level security centres in so-called “liberated” areas.

    One of these centres was known as M-13, a small, well-hidden prison in the country’s rural southwest. A man named Kaing Guek Eav – also called Duch – was responsible for prisoners at M-13.

    Shortly after the entire country fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Duch was assigned to lead the headquarters of the regime’s security system: a large detention and torture centre known as S-21.

    Under his instruction, tens of thousands of people were detained in inhumane conditions, tortured and interrogated. Many detainees were later taken to the outskirts of the city to be brutally killed and buried in pits at a place called Choeung Ek.

    The sites operated until early 1979, when the Khmer Rouge was forced from power.

    The S-21 facility and the mass graves at Choeung Ek have long been memorialised as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre.

    However, the former M-13 site shows few visual clues to its prior use, and has only recently been investigated by an international team led by Cambodian archaeologist and museum director Hang Nisay. The site is on an island in a small river that forms the boundary between the Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu provinces.

    Further research, site protection and memorialisation activities will now be supported, with help from locals.

    From repression to reflection

    The Cambodian memorial sites have been recognised as holding “outstanding universal value” for the way they evidence one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, and are now places of memory.

    In its nomination dossier for these sites, Cambodia drew on findings from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to verify and link the conflict and the sites.

    In 2010, the tribunal found Duch guilty of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Duch was sentenced to 30 years in prison (which eventually turned into life imprisonment). He died in 2020.

    While courts such as the International Criminal Court have previously examined the destruction of heritage as an international crime, drawing on legal findings to assert heritage status is an unusual inverse. It raises important questions about the legacies of former UN-supported tribunals and the ongoing implications of their findings.

    The recent listings also raise questions for Australia, which has many sites of documented mass killing associated with colonisation and the frontier wars that lasted into the 20th century.

    Might Australia nominate any of these atrocity sites in the future? And could other processes such as truth-telling, reparation and redress support (or be supported by) such nominations?

    The Conversation

    Rachel Hughes has consulted to UNESCO Cambodia.

    Maria Elander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict – https://theconversation.com/unesco-grants-world-heritage-status-to-khmer-rouge-atrocity-sites-paving-the-way-for-other-sites-of-conflict-260923

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

    Kokkai Ng/Getty

    In the runup to each election, federal treasury produces a “blue book” and a “red book”, with advice tailored to the priorities of the two alternative governments.

    One of these is given to the incoming government and the other is never released. Freedom of Information requests have generally resulted in only heavily redacted versions of the incoming government brief being made public.

    But this week, the table of contents was accidentally released, revealing treasury’s view of how the government should be handling the economy.

    Taxes “need to be raised”

    Treasury suggests more tax should be raised. This is unsurprising – there is bipartisan support for more defence spending, and an ageing population means more spending on health and aged care, only partially offset by less spending on education.



    Read more:
    The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

    The government is hoping to slow spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme but it is still projected to grow much faster than government revenue.

    No one wants to default on government debt. So higher bond yields and the deficits incurred during the COVID pandemic, and projected for the next decade, mean governments will be paying more interest.

    There are few areas of government spending expected to contract. So the cruel arithmetic is unless we are happy to keep government debt – already close to a trillion dollars – growing indefinitely, taxes need to rise.

    The challenge is to find the most efficient way to do so. We don’t know whether Treasury made specific suggestions.

    As we will probably hear at next month’s Economic Reform Roundtable, most economists think we should be putting more tax on things we want to discourage (greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of unhealthy products) and less on things we want to encourage (working, saving).

    We want more taxes that do not alter economic activity (such as on land and excess profits from minerals) and less that discourage useful economic activities (such as stamp duties, which discourage mobility). We also want less tax where activity is being driven into black markets (arguably the case with cigarettes).

    There may be some areas where tax concessions are excessive. Superannuation tax concessions are subsidising some rich people to build much larger savings than are needed for a comfortable retirement. (A proposal from the government to trim these will be before the Senate when parliament resumes next week.)

    Capital gains tax concessions, which mainly help the rich, are also hard to justify.

    We also want to consider equity. Most people accept that a tax system should be progressive. This means the rich pay a higher proportion of income in taxes than do the poor. In our current tax system, income and land taxes are progressive but GST and some other excises are regressive. The overall system is roughly proportional.

    Housing target “will not be met”

    Treasury also warned the government that its pledge to build 1.2 million homes over five years will be very difficult to achieve. In the year to June 2024, just 176,000 homes were built.

    Even the relevant ministers have described the target as “ambitious”. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Monday “we will need more effort”.

    Treasury has cast doubt on the government’s plans to build 1.2 million new homes over five years. So far only 176,000 have been built.
    Inga Blessas/Shutterstock

    Many commentators have described how difficult it will be to achieve this target.

    A shortage of construction workers, the impact of planning restrictions, and weak productivity are also concerns. A recent study by the Productivity Commission concluded:

    over the past 30 years, the number of dwellings completed per hour worked by housing construction workers has declined by 53%.

    Concerns about the US

    Another unsurprising revelation in the briefing is Treasury is concerned about the economic consequences of Donald Trump as US president.

    One threat comes from the ever-changing array of tariffs Trump is introducing. If other countries retaliate by raising their own tariffs, the adverse impact on the global economy will be even greater.



    Read more:
    What would a second Trump presidency mean for the global economy?

    We can get some idea of the possible impact on Australia from modelling published by the Reserve Bank. In its Statement on Monetary Policy, the bank presented two alternative scenarios.

    Under what it called the “trade war” scenario, global gross domestic product declines by more than it did during the 2007 global financial crisis. Australian unemployment increases to nearly 6%. Under the “trade peace” scenario, unemployment remains around its current 4% level.

    Another concern held by Treasury was the possible loss of independence of the US Federal Reserve Board (or “Fed”), the counterpart to Australia’s Reserve Bank. Trump has vowed to replace Fed chair Jerome Powell with someone more compliant when Powell’s term ends next year.

    Trump wants the Fed to slash short-term interest rates regardless of the economic circumstances. This would raise the risk of a surge in inflation. It could also lead to higher bond yields, which would flow into higher interest rates charged by banks on loans. This could plunge the US economy into recession, with impacts felt around the world.

    John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Australian Treasury.

    – ref. Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets – https://theconversation.com/treasury-warns-the-government-it-may-not-balance-the-budget-or-meet-its-housing-targets-261084

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Mary Hallinan, Senior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne

    Vanessa Nunes/Getty Images

    In 2024 alone, Australia’s medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), authorised at least 979,000 prescription applications for medicinal cannabis through its specialised access pathways.

    These “specialised access” mechanisms were originally designed for occasional, case-by-case use of unapproved drugs. But they have become mainstream.

    As more and more people receive medicinal cannabis prescriptions, we’re left with a system that is misaligned with its original purpose.

    The current prescribing landscape for medicinal cannabis is confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients, and difficult to regulate.

    The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) recently announced it’s going to crack down on unsafe prescribing. But this doesn’t go far enough. The system needs urgent reform.

    What is medicinal cannabis used for?

    Medicinal cannabis was legalised in Australia in 2016. Products come in different forms including oils, liquids, capsules, gels (which can be applied to the skin), dried flower (which can be inhaled using a vapouriser) and gummies.

    Key ingredients include THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol). THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, and is responsible if a “high” is experienced.

    When it was first legalised, medicinal cannabis was intended for patients with complex needs and severe, treatment-resistant conditions.

    The TGA clearly indicated medicinal cannabis should not be considered a first-line treatment for any condition, and should be administered with a “start low, go slow” dosage approach.

    Patients for whom it might be deemed appropriate included those receiving palliative care, or suffering with intractable epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, or chronic pain unresponsive to standard care.

    But over time, prescribing has expanded well beyond these cases. Today, most medicinal cannabis prescriptions are given for relatively common conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety and sleep disorders.

    What does the evidence say?

    The evidence remains inconsistent. Chronic pain – the most common reason medicinal cannabis is prescribed in Australia – offers a key example.

    According to a recent TGA review, some randomised trials suggest medicinal cannabis may help a subset of patients achieve moderate reductions in pain. However, many studies are small, of variable quality, and don’t account for long-term effects.

    And like all medicines, medicinal cannabis carries risks. Products containing THC have been linked to side-effects such as sedation, dizziness and cognitive impairment.

    While generally better tolerated, CBD is not risk-free. For example, both CBD and THC can interact with certain medications, heightening the likelihood of adverse effects.

    Access over evidence

    In Australia, approved medicines undergo rigorous clinical testing before they’re registered. Drug manufacturers’ applications to the TGA normally include detailed data on efficacy as well as long-term safety monitoring and quality controls.

    But driven by patient advocacy, political responsiveness, and commercial momentum, medicinal cannabis has come to reflect a different model.

    Most medicinal cannabis products – bar two which have TGA approval – lack the evidence demonstrating safety, quality and efficacy required of registered pharmaceuticals.

    In other words, the majority are not subject to the rigorous trials or data standards required for formal registration with the TGA’s Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

    For many doctors, whose prescribing has traditionally been guided by strong trial data and rigorous regulatory review, this doesn’t sit well.

    Doctors are often flying blind

    While companies can legally sell cannabis products via access schemes without investing in clinical research, doctors are expected to prescribe without consistent information on what works, for whom, and at what dose.

    The TGA oversees access pathways but is neither resourced nor mandated to provide clinical oversight or direct support to prescribers, leaving many clinicians to navigate the system alone.

    Prescriptions are frequently granted via telehealth and posted to patients.

    Growing concerns have emerged that some care models – particularly high-volume telehealth services – are prioritising patient throughput over clinical judgment, and not spending enough time with patients.

    For example, Ahpra reported eight practitioners issued more than 10,000 medicinal cannabis scripts in a six-month period, while one appeared to have issued in excess of 17,000.

    The surge in prescribing has been further shaped by active marketing from some cannabis companies, outpacing the development of coordinated clinical guidance and safety monitoring infrastructure.

    Many people who get a script for medicinal cannabis do so via telehealth.
    Geber86/Shutterstock

    Access and affordability: a system failing patients

    Some people, including those living in rural and remote areas, can find it difficult to navigate medicinal cannabis prescribing processes. This can be due to limited digital access and fewer opportunities for follow-up with a local GP. These challenges make it harder for people to make informed decisions about their care.

    Cost is also a major issue, particularly where bulk billing is unavailable or multiple consultations are needed. This is on top of the cost of the products.

    One of the two TGA-approved medicinal cannabis products, Sativex, used to treat muscle stiffness in multiple sclerosis, is not currently subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This means patients pay the full cost, which ranges between A$700 and $800 for a 6–8 week supply.



    Read more:
    We looked at 54 medicinal cannabis websites to see if they followed the rules. Here’s what we found

    What needs to change?

    Australia’s medicinal cannabis system is based on a fragmented evidence base and a fast-growing market operating with limited visibility into how products are used or evaluated. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated reform across multiple fronts.

    1. Capture real-world data

    Most urgently, we need robust, real-world data. To deliver safe and equitable care, we must know how medicinal cannabis is being prescribed, for what conditions, under what circumstances, and with what outcomes.

    Without this, we cannot answer the most basic questions about clinical benefits or track adverse events.

    Real-world data, such as de-identified health information from clinics, could help inform better clinical and policy decisions.

    2. Build a national accreditation model

    Australia needs a national prescriber accreditation model for medicinal cannabis, developed in collaboration with clinicians, regulators and professional bodies.

    Such a model would help ensure prescribing is clinically appropriate, evidence-informed, and consistent with evolving standards of care. In practice, this would mean health professionals would need to complete specific training before prescribing medicinal cannabis.

    This approach is not without precedent. For example, some health professionals must undergo immuniser accreditation before they can administer vaccines independently.

    3. Tackle inequity

    Finally, we must confront persistent access inequities. That includes exploring government subsidies for TGA-approved medicinal cannabis products. No one should have to choose between financial hardship and safe access.

    Dr Christine Hallinan, Senior Reseach Fellow, conducted research on the pharmacovigilance of medicinal cannabis at the University of Melbourne as part of the Pharmacovigilance theme within the Australian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), which was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through the Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) scheme. She served as an Associate Investigator on ACRE from 2017 to 2023. Christine Hallinan is also a member of an Expert Roundtable on medicinal cannabis, chaired by Ian Freckelton AO KC and facilitated by Montu. The Roundtable brings together experts from medicine, law, research, and policy to contribute recommendations for a more evidence-based and fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. These roles are disclosed in the interest of transparency and do not influence the content or conclusions of this work.

    – ref. Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform – https://theconversation.com/confusing-for-doctors-inequitable-for-patients-why-australias-medicinal-cannabis-system-needs-urgent-reform-257249

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-committing-to-a-hypothetical-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How much salt is OK in drinking water? Without limits, Australia’s health gap widens in remote and regional areas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juliette Crowther, Researcher in Food Policy, George Institute for Global Health

    Andrew Merry/Getty

    Most Australians consume far too much sodium, mostly in the form of salt (sodium chloride) in the food they eat.

    The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends no more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium a day, roughly one teaspoon of salt.

    Yet the average Australian consumes nearly twice that.

    In some regional and remote communities, salty drinking water is quietly adding to this problem – yet sodium levels in tap water are often overlooked.

    Our new research reviewed 197 countries and shows when drinking water standards for sodium exist, they’re usually based on taste, not health.

    Most follow guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) which, in its global campaign to lower sodium intake, has focused on diet but largely ignored drinking water.

    Salty water is an overlooked health risk

    Excess sodium is a major risk factor for high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attacks and stroke. These are leading causes of death and disability across the world.

    In 2013, these health risks led the WHO to set a global target to reduce sodium intake by 30% by 2025. The WHO has since extended this to 2030, due to slow progress.

    Public health efforts to reduce sodium (salt) have focused mainly on food, not drinking water. This is because most tap water contains low sodium levels (usually below 20mg per litre).

    But some natural water sources contain excessively high sodium. In Australia, this mainly affects remote and rural communities.

    Evidence suggests it’s a growing issue, compounded by climate change, rising sea levels, more frequent storms, prolonged droughts, and human activities, including over extraction of groundwater and agricultural runoff.

    What does the WHO say about water?

    The WHO’s recommended threshold for sodium in water – no more than 200mg/L – is based on how water tastes (palatability), not what is safe for health.

    Worryingly, the WHO recommendations about drinking water are based on an outdated 2003 report that found evidence linking sodium with high blood pressure was lacking.

    Convincing evidence has since confirmed that higher sodium intake is directly related to increased blood pressure.

    The WHO updated its dietary guidelines for sodium in 2012 to reflect these health risks. But water guidelines have not changed.

    What our new research shows

    Our new research, published in recent weeks, reviewed guidelines for sodium in drinking water in 197 countries.

    It found 20% of countries – home to 30% of the world’s population – have no sodium limit in drinking water.

    Among the 132 countries that do, most (92%) follow WHO guidelines.

    Our research found only 12 countries cited health reasons for setting sodium limits, and just two of these set stricter limits than WHO guidelines.

    This means across the world, most drinking standards for sodium continue to be guided by taste, not health.

    Palatability is highly subjective. Just as some people enjoy salty chips and others find them overpowering, sensitivity to sodium in water varies.

    In contrast, the health risks of too much salt are clear.

    What do Australia’s guidelines say?

    Australia’s drinking water guidelines include a non-mandatory sodium limit of 180mg/L, also based on taste.

    But this is still too high to protect health.

    Drinking two litres of water at this concentration in one day would mean having 360mg of sodium – almost one-fifth of the recommended maximum. This is equivalent to eating a large bag of sea-salt popcorn.

    While the guidelines do recommend that people with high blood pressure drink water with less than 20mg/L sodium, there is no clear plan for how this can be achieved equitably, especially when the alternative is expensive bottled water.

    Water inequity in Walgett

    The consequences of this policy gap are stark in places such as Walgett, a remote town in north-western New South Wales with a high Aboriginal population (almost 50%).

    In 2018, when the local river ran dry, the town switched to bore water. Residents immediately noticed the water was slimy and undrinkable.

    Local Aboriginal community controlled organisations asked researchers from the University of New South Wales to test the water. This revealed sodium levels over 300mg/L.

    In 2020, the New South Wales government eventually installed a desalination plant, but due to issues managing waste, it was decommissioned a few months later.

    Today, Walgett still lacks a long-term solution to provide drinking water with low levels of sodium.

    Water inequality is health inequality

    Walgett isn’t an isolated case. Many inland and remote towns, often with high Aboriginal populations, rely on rivers and bore water increasingly affected by drought and agricultural overuse.

    This inequity in access to safe drinking water worsens the health gap.

    Indigenous Australians already face higher rates of high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease – all worsened by excess sodium.

    In places such as Walgett, where some people report spending as much as A$50 a week on bottled water, families are forced to choose between safe hydration and essentials such as food or medicine.

    Without mandatory health-based limits, these communities have no way to compel authorities to make their water safe.

    Safe drinking water is a human right

    In 2023, the European Union mandated legally binding drinking water standards in all member states.

    Although still based on the outdated 200mg/L taste threshold, this legal framework gives communities a basis to advocate for safer water – something Australia currently lacks.

    A sodium limit closer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency guideline of 30–60mg/L would better align with health advice.

    Without enforceable, health-based limits, Australia risks falling behind on its commitments to the sodium reduction targets and sustainable development goals set by the United Nations.

    No one should have to fight for safe drinking water. If we want to protect our most vulnerable communities, water policy must catch up with science and public health priorities.

    We would like to thank all of the authors of the paper, and the Yuwaya Ngarra-li, a community-led partnership between the Dharriwaa Elders Groups in Walgett and the University of New South Wales.

    This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The George Institute’s Food Policy Group is a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Population Salt Reduction. Juliette Crowther has no other conflicts of interest to declare.

    Jacqui Webster receives salary funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (#2018015) and DFAT. Jacqui Webster is Chief Investigator on the NHMRC Ideas grant (#2003862) that this research is funded through.

    – ref. How much salt is OK in drinking water? Without limits, Australia’s health gap widens in remote and regional areas – https://theconversation.com/how-much-salt-is-ok-in-drinking-water-without-limits-australias-health-gap-widens-in-remote-and-regional-areas-260496

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-being-dragged-into-a-potential-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-being-dragged-into-a-potential-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Women played key roles in Syria’s revolution. Now they’ve been pushed to the margins

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kinda Alsamara, Lecturer in the School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland

    The end of the oppressive Assad regime in Syria in late 2024 has been broadly welcomed on the global stage – underscored by the fact the United States and European Union have now lifted sanctions against the country.

    However, women have been marginalised by Syria’s new leadership. That’s a problem for Syrian women, of course, but it also puts at risk prospects for sustainable peace in Syria.

    A growing body of research, including our own, shows a direct correlation between gender equality and peace.

    Syria now stands at a crossroads. Will it ensure women’s meaningful participation and follow a path to peace? Or will things head in the other direction?

    This is more urgent than ever. Failure to grapple with women’s rights in Syria risks plunging the nation further into extremist violence.

    Women excluded both before and after Assad’s rule

    After decades in power, the harsh Assad regime was overthrown late last year by rebels led by Sunni Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

    But women – who were marginalised politically and economically under Assad – continue to be systematically excluded from decision-making in the new government.

    This is even though women played an essential role in the Syrian revolution. They organised protests and advocated for rights (often at great personal risk).

    They endured sacrifices such as imprisonment, torture, disappearance and displacement.

    Yet, only one woman was appointed to Syria’s immediate post-Assad caretaker government. She didn’t get a ministerial title.

    The caretaker government spokesman reportedly suggested women’s “biological and physiological nature” makes them unsuitable for certain government roles.

    Reports allege the man initially appointed as Syria’s new minister of justice previously oversaw executions of women accused of being sex workers.

    Some Syrian activists are concerned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham will enforce a gendered and conservative interpretation of Islamic law, which prevailed in its previous stronghold of Idlib (a city in northwestern Syria).

    Limited roles for women

    A key moment came when the new Syrian government held a “national dialogue conference” earlier this year. This conference was to establish a forward-looking “political identity” for Syria.

    Of the seven-member conference preparatory committee, only two were women.

    There was no representation on the preparatory committee from several of Syria’s diverse communities, including Kurdish, Alawite and Druze groups.

    Most members had strong ties with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or other Islamist factions.

    About 200 of the 1,000 delegates at the conference were women. However, their input in legislative and security committees was minimal.

    Only one of 18 conference recommendations referred (in a limited way) to women.

    Following the national dialogue conference, new Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa signed into force a constitutional declaration that set a five-year transition period and established the interim government.

    Senior figures in the new government described the declaration as guaranteeing women’s political and economic rights.

    Yet only one of Syria’s 23 ministers is a woman: Hind Kabawat, appointed as minister of social affairs and labour. This “soft” portfolio is commonly associated with gendered expectations around care and welfare.

    Key ministries were allocated to al-Sharaa’s all-male long-time comrades from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s base in Idlib.

    Change is possible

    A just and sustainable peace requires proactive measures to integrate women into leadership roles in Syria.

    Change is possible. For example, constitutional mandates could guarantee minimum representation for women in ministerial leadership and judicial positions, which would better reflect the diversity of Syrian society.

    Independent mechanisms could be established to investigate and address gender-based injustices. This would need to provide accountability for past abuses and protect women’s rights under the post-Assad system.

    As we have previously noted, there cannot be a “collective forgetting” of crimes Syrian women experienced in the past.

    Economic empowerment initiatives would also help foster women’s financial independence and participation in public life.

    Public awareness campaigns could also highlight women’s contributions to the revolution and their essential role in nation-building.

    Syria at a crossroads

    With the recent lifting of sanctions by the US and EU, and ongoing regional instability globally, Syria stands at a crossroads.

    The G7 Summit in May 2025 emphasised the global community’s renewed focus on women’s participation in peace processes.

    Influential middle-power countries can play a key role by reviewing sanctions and tying humanitarian aid to the promotion of human rights, gender inclusion and pluralistic governance.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Women played key roles in Syria’s revolution. Now they’ve been pushed to the margins – https://theconversation.com/women-played-key-roles-in-syrias-revolution-now-theyve-been-pushed-to-the-margins-257358

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia risks being dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia risks being dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-risks-being-dragged-into-a-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Music is at the forefront of AI disruption, but NZ artists still have few protections

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dave Carter, Associate Professor, School of Music and Screen Arts, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

    Getty Images

    Was the recent Velvet Sundown phenomenon a great music and media hoax, a sign of things to come, or just another example of what’s already happening ?

    In case you missed it, the breakout act was streamed hundreds of thousands of times before claims emerged the band and their music were products of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI).

    Despite the “band” insisting they were real, an “associate” later admitted it was indeed an “art hoax” marketing stunt. Much of the subsequent commentary was concerned with fairness – particularly that a “fake” band was succeeding at the expense of “real” artists.

    But Velvet Sundown is only the most recent example in a long history of computer generated and assisted music creation – going back to the 1950s when a chemistry professor named Lejaren Hiller debuted a musical composition written by a computer.

    By the 1980s, David Cope’s Experiments in Musical Intelligence created music so close to the style of Chopin and Bach it fooled classically trained musicians.

    Artist and composer Holly Herndon was highlighting a need for the ethical use and licensing of voice models and deepfakes several years before Grimes invited others to use AI-generated versions of her voice to make new music, and “Deepfake Drake” alarmed the major record labels.

    At the same time, music companies, including Warner, Capitol and rapper-producer Timbaland, have since inked record contracts for AI-generated work.

    GenAI-powered tools, such as those offered by Izotope, LANDR and Apple, have become commonplace in mixing and mastering since the late 2000s. Machine learning technology also underpins streaming recommendations.

    Creativity and copyright

    Despite this relatively long history of technology’s impact on music, it still tends to be framed as a future challenge. The New Zealand government’s Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, released this month, suggests we’re at a “pivotal moment” as the AI-powered future approaches.

    In June, a draft insight briefing from Manata Taonga/Ministry for Culture & Heritage explored “how digital technologies may transform the ways New Zealanders create, share and protect stories in 2040 and beyond”.

    It joins other recent publications by the Australasian Performing Rights Association and New Zealand’s Artificial Intelligence Researchers Association, which grapple with the future impacts of AI technologies.

    One of the main issues is the use of copyright material to train AI systems. Last year, two AI startups, including the one used by Velvet Sundown, were sued by Sony, Universal and Warner for using unlicensed recordings as part of their training data.

    It’s possible the models have been trained on recordings by local musicians without their permission, too. But without any requirement for tech firms to disclose their training data it can’t be confirmed.

    Even if we did know, the copyright implications for works created by AI in Aotearoa New Zealand aren’t clear. And it’s not possible for musicians to opt out in any meaningful way.

    This goes against the data governance model designed by Te Mana Raraunga/Māori Sovereignty Network. Māori writer members of music rights administrator APRA AMCOS have also raised concerns about potential cultural appropriation and misuse due to GenAI.

    Recent research suggesting GenAI work displaces human output in creative industries is particularly worrying for local musicians who already struggle for visibility. But it’s not an isolated phenomenon.

    In Australia, GenAI has reportedly been used to impersonate successful, emerging and dead artists. And French streaming service Deezer claims up to 20,000 tracks created by GenAI were being uploaded to its service daily.

    Regulation in the real world

    There has been increased scrutiny of streaming fraud, including a world-first criminal case brought last year against a musician who used bots to generate millions of streams for tracks created with GenAI.

    But on social media, musicians now compete for attention with a flood of “AI slop”, with no real prospect of platforms doing anything about it.

    More troublingly, New Zealand law has been described as “woefully inadequate” at combating deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery that can damage artists’ brands and livelihoods.

    The government’s AI strategy prioritises adoption, innovation and a light-touch approach over these creative and cultural implications. But there is growing consensus internationally that regulatory intervention is warranted.

    The European Union has enacted legislation requiring AI services to be transparent about what they have trained their models on, an important first step towards an AI licensing regime for recorded and musical works.

    An Australian senate committee has recommended whole-of-economy AI guardrails, including transparency requirements in line with the EU. Denmark has gone even further, with plans to give every citizen copyright of their own facial features, voice and body, including specific protections for performing artists.

    It’s nearly ten years since the music business was described as the “canary in a coalmine” for other industries and a bellwether of broader cultural and economic shifts. How we address the current challenges presented by AI in music will have far-reaching implications.

    Dave Carter is a writer member of APRA AMCOS. He has received funding and contributed to projects funded by Manatū Taongao Ministry for Culture and Heritage, NZ on Air and APRA AMCOS.

    Jesse Austin-Stewart has completed commissioned research for NZ On Air and participated in focus groups for Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He has received competitive funding from Creative New Zealand, NZ On Air, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Hertiage, and the NZ Music Commission. He is a writer member of APRA AMCOS and a member of the Composer’s Association of New Zealand and Recorded Music NZ

    Oli Wilson has previously completed research in partnership with or commissioned by APRA AMCOS, Toi Mai Workforce Development Council, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Heritage and the NZ Music Commission. He has also received funding, or contributed to projects that have benefited from funding from NZ on Air, the NZ Music Commission and Recorded Music New Zealand. He has provided services to The Chills, owns shares in TripTunz Limited, and is a writer member of APRA AMCOS.

    – ref. Music is at the forefront of AI disruption, but NZ artists still have few protections – https://theconversation.com/music-is-at-the-forefront-of-ai-disruption-but-nz-artists-still-have-few-protections-260299

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

    Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    These days when you see people exercising, they’re usually also listening to music, whether they’re at the gym, or out jogging on the street.

    It makes sense, as studies have shown listening to music can help you get the most out of a workout.

    Somehow the ancient Greeks and Romans knew this too, long before modern science was there to back it.

    A more than 2,000-year-old habit

    In his oration To the People of Alexandria, the Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (40-110 CE) complained about a phenomenon he saw all the time.

    Dio wrote people loved to listen to music in their daily activities. According to him, music could be found in the courtroom, in the lecture theatre, in the doctor’s room, and even in the gym.

    “Everything is done to music […] people will presently go so far as to use song to accompany their exercise in the gymnasium,” Dio wrote.

    But exercising to music wasn’t a new thing in his day. This practice has been recorded across the ancient Greek and Roman worlds from the earliest times, and as far back as the poems of Homer (circa 800 BCE).

    Why exercise to music?

    There are many depictions of professional athletes training, or competing, to the accompaniment of music in ancient Greek vase paintings.

    In one vase painting from the 5th century BCE, a group of athletes trains while a musician plays the aulos, a type of ancient pipe instrument.

    Young men exercising to the sound of an aulos player (an ancient wind instrument).
    Wikimedia

    The ancient writer Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-119 CE) tells us music was also played while people wrestled or did athletics.

    Athenian writer Flavius Philostratus (circa 170-245 CE) offers clues as to why. In a book about gymnastics, Philostratus wrote music served to stimulate athletes, and that their performance might be improved through listening to music.

    Today’s researchers have proven this to be true. One 2020 study involving 3,599 participants showed listening to music during exercise had many benefits, such as reducing the perception of fatigue and exertion, and improving physical performance and breathing.

    Singing and trumpets

    Since ancient people didn’t have electronic devices, they found other ways to exercise to music. Some had music played by a musician during their exercise routine. Others sang while they exercised.

    Singing while playing ball games was particularly popular. In Homer’s Odyssey (circa 8th century BCE), Nausicaa, the daughter of the King of Phaeacia, plays a ball game with her girl friends, and they all sing songs as they play.

    Similarly, the historian Carystius of Pergamum (2nd century BCE) wrote the women of his time “sang as they played ball”.

    Another popular activity was dancing to music. Dancing was widely regarded as a gymnastic exercise people could do for better health.

    One famous advocate of the benefits of dancing as exercise was the great Athenian philosopher Socrates (circa 470-399 BCE). According to the historian Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), “it was Socrates’ regular habit to dance, thinking that such exercise helped to keep the body in good condition”.

    Exercising to music was depicted in several ancient Greek vase painting.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    Apart from individuals using music in their personal exercise, soldiers also did training exercises, and marched to battle, to the sound of trumpets.

    Don’t skip leg day

    There was a belief in ancient Greek and Roman that music and exercise played an important role in shaping and developing the body and soul.

    The ideal was harmony and moderation. The body and soul needed to be balanced and proportionate in all their parts, without any excess. As such, doing one kind of exercise too often, or exercising one body part excessively, was frowned upon.

    The physician Galen of Pergamum (129-216 CE) criticised types of exercise that focused too much on one part of the body. He preferred ball games as they exercised the whole body evenly.

    Immoderation in music – that is, listening to too much, or listening to music that was too emotional – was also sometimes frowned upon.

    For example, the Athenian philosopher Plato (circa 428-348 BCE) famously argued most music should be censored as it can stir the passions too strongly. Plato thought only simple and unemotional music, listened to in moderation, should be allowed.

    If the ancients could see today’s people running along the pavement with music thumping in their ears, they would surely be amazed. And they’d probably approve – as long as it wasn’t being done in excess.

    Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans – https://theconversation.com/cant-work-out-without-music-neither-could-the-ancient-greeks-and-romans-258069

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Whelan, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

    GAS-photo/Shutterstock

    House prices continued to rise across Australia in June, recent data shows. Nationally, prices have risen about 38% in the past five years.

    Higher housing prices are simply one contributor, albeit a very important one, to the cost of living crisis that Australian households face. Energy prices are another.

    Those higher costs of living and the financial stress associated with them are linked to a range of negative outcomes for households, including poor health and wellbeing, greater housing insecurity, and some families having to go without some essential items.

    One consequence of house prices that has largely been ignored is their relationship to marriage and divorce.

    Divorce rates are at historic lows

    The rate of divorce in Australia is at the lowest level since the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976.

    The 1990s recession was also a period of significant financial hardship for households, and divorces rose over that time. Why isn’t this happening now?

    Couples may prefer to divorce but can’t for financial reasons.

    Why? Put simply, divorce is a decision that brings with it significant costs. The financial implications of divorce could mean couples stay together longer than they’d like to.

    Why do people choose to marry or separate?

    To understand patterns of divorce, a good place to start is to think about why couples choose to marry, or separate, in the first place.

    Economists argue that individuals marry if the expected benefits from marriage exceed the benefits from remaining single.

    As new information arises or unexpected outcomes occur, individuals may reassess their beliefs about the expected benefits from being married versus being single.

    In turn, we might expect that separation occurs if either partner believes they will be better off outside the marriage than within it, taking into account all costs and constraints.

    How housing prices can affect the likelihood of divorce

    Research shows that housing prices are closely linked to a range of household behaviours and outcomes, including consumer spending, labour supply and fertility intentions.

    Rising housing prices might encourage couples to remain married (or not separate) due to the higher housing costs they would face if they separated.

    It is generally cheaper to run a single household where many resources are shared rather than two separate households. This may be thought of as a cost that accompanies higher house prices.

    The high cost of housing can affect couples’ decisions to separate.
    Elias Bitar/Shutterstock

    Of course, higher house prices also offer some benefit in the event of separation. For homeowners, the asset held by the couple is more valuable and the wealth each partner may be entitled to is greater. This benefit from separation might encourage couples to separate and divorce.

    Our research, presented at the Australian Conference of Economists last week and not yet peer reviewed, addresses this issue. We looked at whether unanticipated changes in the growth of housing prices are related to the likelihood of divorce.

    It is important to focus on unanticipated changes in housing prices. Unanticipated changes, or “shocks”, will lead individuals to reassess their decision to stay married, or separate and divorce.

    Which factors explain divorce in Australia?

    Our research sought to understand the key factors associated with divorce in Australia using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

    Not unexpectedly we found couples who share similar traits such as the same religion, education level or place of birth are more likely to remain married. A longer time being married is also linked to couples being less likely to separate. In contrast, partners whose parents had divorced are more likely to separate.

    Importantly, the inclusion of housing price shocks into our analysis indicates they have a significant effect on the likelihood of divorce. But the effect differs depending on whether the housing price shock is positive or negative.

    For homeowners, lower-than-anticipated housing price growth significantly increases the likelihood of separation. In this case the cost of lower house prices is more important than the benefit of lower house prices. When house prices don’t grow as quickly as anticipated, couples can separate knowing they will not face as large a penalty running separate households.

    So what lesson may be drawn from this research and why is a link between housing prices and divorce important?

    Our findings indicate higher-than-expected house price growth may be keeping some people in marriages they’d otherwise leave, but don’t, for financial concerns. This is more likely to include women with low education levels, low-income households and older couples.

    In some instances, this will have negative consequences. Often those harmful consequences are disproportionately experienced by women and policy settings have a role to play in reducing those effects.

    One only needs to look at initiatives such as the Leaving Violence Program. By providing financial support to assist people leaving potentially dangerous relationships, it will alleviate barriers associated with high housing costs that come after separation.

    Stephen Whelan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230101054. Funding is also received from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute for project 24/PRO/73346.

    Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230100959.

    – ref. Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/soaring-house-prices-may-be-locking-people-into-marriages-new-research-shows-260086

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s happened to Australia’s green hydrogen dream? Here are 5 reasons the industry has floundered

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Reeve, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute

    An official from German energy supplier Eon with Fortescue founder Andrew Forrest after inking a deal in 2022 to supply green hydrogen from Australia to Germany. Michael Kappeler/picture alliance via Getty Images

    As the world looks for ways to tackle climate change, Australia has invested heavily in green hydrogen.

    Green hydrogen is shaping as the best option to strip carbon emissions from some industrial processes, such as iron-making and ammonia production. But making the dream a reality in Australia is proving difficult.

    Two recent announcements are a case in point. This month, the Queensland government withdrew financial support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub. It came weeks after energy company Fortescue cut 90 green hydrogen jobs in Queensland and Western Australia.

    I led the development of Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019, in my previous job as a federal public servant. I also co-authored a Grattan Institute report on how hydrogen could help decarbonise the Australian economy. Here, I explain the main challenges to getting the industry off the ground.

    But first, what is green hydrogen?

    Hydrogen is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. It’s usually found as a gas, or bonded to other elements.

    It’s used to make products such as fertilisers, explosives and plastics. In future, it may also be a zero-emissions replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel and chemicals manufacturing.

    Australia currently makes very low volumes of hydrogen using natural gas, which produces greenhouse gas emissions. We are well-placed to produce “green” or zero-emissions hydrogen, through a process powered by renewable energy which releases hydrogen from water.

    But creating a large green hydrogen industry won’t be easy. These are the main five challenges.

    1. The learning curve is steep

    About 15 facilities in Australia are currently producing green hydrogen, all at low volumes – between 8 kilograms and one tonne a day (see chart below).

    By contrast, most recently cancelled projects would have produced hundreds of tonnes of green hydrogen daily. The Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub, for example, would initially have produced about 200 tonnes a day, scaling up to 800 tonnes in the 2030s.

    The failure of these big projects shows Australia has much to learn about planning, building, commissioning and operating large green hydrogen facilities.

    The hydrogen projects currently operating in Australia are orders of magnitude smaller than those proposed.
    Grattan Insitute, CC BY-NC-SA

    2. Demand is limited

    Very little hydrogen is currently used in Australia – around 500,000 tonnes a year. This is less than 1% of national energy consumption.

    Most of this hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and is produced on site at existing industrial operations that require hydrogen, such as oil refiners and ammonia plants. Using hydrogen from a different source would require major – and costly – engineering changes at these facilities.

    So, how do new green hydrogen producers create demand for their product?

    The first option is to convince a company to spend money changing their operations to bring in green hydrogen from outside. This is not an easy prospect. The second is to find big new markets – which leads to the next challenge.

    3. The chicken-and-egg problem

    Renewable hydrogen isn’t a direct substitute for conventional fuels.

    You can’t burn hydrogen in your gas stovetop without changing the pipes in the house and the burners on the stove. Likewise, you can’t use hydrogen as a substitute for coal when making steel without changing the smelting process.

    This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Green hydrogen proponents won’t invest in high-volume production unless there are large users to buy the product. But large users won’t invest in changing their processes unless they are assured of supply.

    4. Green hydrogen is expensive

    Green hydrogen is much more expensive than conventional hydrogen. And as yet, there’s little evidence buyers are willing pay more for it.

    So for green hydrogen to compete with conventional production, it needs government subsidies.

    The huge expense is largely due to the electricity used to make green hydrogen – prices of which are currently high.

    As renewable energy expands, electricity prices in Australia are expected to fall. But building more large-scale renewable generation in Australia is itself a difficult prospect.

    5. Economic and political turmoil

    Recent turmoil in global markets has made companies more cautious about investing outside their core business. And global inflation has helped drive up the cost of electricity needed to produce green hydrogen.

    Globally, governments have scrambled to keep national economies afloat, which has led to cuts in green hydrogen in several countries.

    In Australia, green hydrogen is still key to the Albanese government’s Future Made in Australia policy. And hydrogen has been a rare area of agreement between the two major parties, at both federal and state levels.

    But there are signs this is changing. The federal opposition last year fought the government’s hydrogen tax credits, and the withdrawal of support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub came from the Queensland LNP government, which won office in October last year.

    What next?

    There is a long road ahead if green hydrogen is to help Australia reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

    So what have we learned so far?

    Many scrapped projects tried to implement a “hub” model – combining multiple users in one place, which was designed to make it more attractive to suppliers. But this was difficult to co-ordinate, and vulnerable to changing global conditions.

    The green hydrogen industry should focus on the most promising uses for its product. For example, if it could successfully make enough green hydrogen to supply ammonia production, it could build on this to eventually support a bigger industry, such as iron-making.

    It’s also time to rethink how subsidies are structured, to reflect the fact some sectors are better bets than others. At present, the federal government’s Hydrogen Headstart program and the hydrogen tax credit are agnostic as to how the hydrogen is used, which does little to help demand emerge in the right places.

    Finally, political unity must be renewed. Hydrogen projects require a lot of capital, and investors get nervous when an industry does not have bipartisan support.

    The hype around green hydrogen in Australia is fading. There are some reasons for hope – but success will require a lot of hard work.

    Since 2008, the Grattan Institute has been supported by government, corporations, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporters is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. What’s happened to Australia’s green hydrogen dream? Here are 5 reasons the industry has floundered – https://theconversation.com/whats-happened-to-australias-green-hydrogen-dream-here-are-5-reasons-the-industry-has-floundered-260634

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

    d3sign/Getty

    Alcohol has many negative effects on our health, some of which may surprise you. These include short-term impacts such as waking up with a pounding head or anxiety, to long-term effects including cancer.

    If you are thinking about taking some time off alcohol, you’ll find many quick wins and long-term gains for your health.

    How long will you have to wait to feel the benefits?

    We’ve made a timeline – based on scientific research – that shows what you might feel in the first days, weeks, months and years after taking a break from alcohol.

    Some benefits start immediately, so every day without alcohol is a win for your health.

    After one day

    Alcohol takes around 24 hours to completely leave your body, so you may start noticing improvements after just one day.

    Alcohol makes you need to urinate more often, causing dehydration. But your body can absorb a glass of water almost immediately, so once alcohol is out of your system alcohol dehydration is reduced, improving digestion, brain function and energy levels.

    Alcohol also reduces the liver’s ability to regulate blood sugar. Once alcohol leaves the system, blood sugar begins to normalise.

    If you are a daily drinker you may feel a bit worse to start with while your body adjusts to not having alcohol in its system all the time. You may initially notice disrupted sleep, mood changes, sweating or tremors. Most symptoms usually resolve in about a week without alcohol.

    After one week

    Even though alcohol can make you feel sleepy at first, it disrupts your sleep cycle. By the end of an alcohol-free week, you may notice you are more energetic in the mornings as a result of getting better quality sleep.

    As the body’s filter, the liver does much of the heavy lifting in processing alcohol and can be easily damaged even with moderate drinking.

    The liver is important for cleaning blood, processing nutrients and producing bile that helps with digestion.

    But it can also regenerate quickly. If you have only mild damage in the liver, seven days may be enough to reduce liver fat and heal mild scarring and tissue damage.

    Even small amounts of alcohol can impair brain functioning. So quitting can help improve brain health within a few days in light to moderate drinkers and within a month even for very heavy dependent drinkers.

    Alcohol damages your liver, but it’s very good at regenerating and healing itself.
    skynesher/Getty

    After one month

    Alcohol can make managing mood harder and worsen symptoms of anxiety and depression. After a few weeks, most people start to feel better. Even very heavy drinkers report better mood after one to two months.

    As your sleep and mood improve you may also notice more energy and greater wellbeing.

    After a month of abstinence regular drinkers also report feeling more confident about making changes to how they drink.

    You may lose weight and body fat. Alcohol contains a lot of kilojules and can trigger hunger reward systems, making us overeat or choose less healthy foods when drinking.

    Even your skin will thank you. Alcohol can make you look older through dehydration and inflammation, which can be reversed when you quit.

    Alcohol irritates the gut and disrupts normal stomach functioning, causing bloating, indigestion, heartburn and diarrhoea. These symptoms usually start to resolve within four weeks.

    One month of abstinence, insulin resistance – which can lead to high blood sugar – significantly reduces by 25%. Blood pressure also reduces (by 6%) and cancer-related growth factors declines, lowering your risk of cancer.

    After six months

    The liver starts to repair within weeks. For moderate drinkers, damage to your liver could be fully reversed by six months.

    At this point, even heavy drinkers may notice they’re better at fighting infections and feel healthier overall.

    Just a month without alcohol can you make more confident about sticking to changes.
    Yue_/Getty

    After one year or more

    Alcohol contributes to or causes a large number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and seven different types of cancer, as well as mental health issues. All of these risks can be reduced by quitting or cutting back on alcohol.

    Alcohol increases blood pressure. High blood pressure (hypertension) is the top risk factor for death in the world. A small 2mmHg increase in blood pressure above the normal range (120mmHG) increases death from stroke by 10% and from coronary artery disease by 7%.

    Cutting back on alcohol to less than two drinks a day can reduce blood pressure significantly, reducing risk of stroke and heart disease. Reducing blood pressure also reduces risk of kidney disease, eye problems and even erectile dysfunction.

    With sustained abstinence, your risk of getting any type of cancer drops. One study looked at cancer risk for more than 4 million adults over three to seven years and found the risk of alcohol-related cancer dropped by 4%, even for light drinkers who quit. Reducing from heavy to moderate drinking reduced alcohol-related cancer risk by 9%.

    Making a change

    Any reduction in drinking will have some noticeable and immediate benefits to your brain and general health. The less you drink and the longer you go between drinks, the healthier you will be.

    Whether you aim to cut back or quit entirely, there are some simple things you can do to help you stick with it:

    If you are still wondering about whether to make changes or not you can check your drinking risk here.

    If you have tried to cut back and found it difficult you may need professional help. Call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 and they will put you in touch with services in your area that can help. You can also talk to your GP.

    We would like to thank Dr Hannah MacRae for assistance in identifying the research used in this article.

    Nicole Lee works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO of Hello Sunday Morning.

    Dr Katinka van de Ven is the Research Manager of Hello Sunday Morning. She also works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

    – ref. Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking – https://theconversation.com/even-a-day-off-alcohol-makes-a-difference-our-timeline-maps-the-health-benefits-when-you-stop-drinking-249272

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘You become a target’: research shows why many people who experience racism don’t report it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mario Peucker, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University

    The way racism manifests itself may have changed over time, but it remains a persistent problem in Australia.

    The 2024 Reconciliation Barometer found a significant increase in racism against First Nations people. Antisemitism and Islamophobia have also been on the rise.

    Many other migrant communities and their Australian-born descendants continue to face racial discrimination, abuse and systemic marginalisation.

    And yet the true picture of racism in Australia is hard to determine, as a lot of racism goes unreported. Our soon to be published research reveals people often don’t know how to come forward, are scared of negative consequences, or simply don’t think anything would change if they did report it.

    Unheard voices

    The silencing of those who have experienced racism manifests in various ways, including the sceptical, at times hostile public reactions to those who speak out publicly.

    But our research, funded by VicHealth and accepted for publication by the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies, analysed how inadequate formal reporting pathways can mean people don’t come forward about their experiences.

    We conducted a survey of more than 700 people, then focus groups with almost 160 people. In total, we examined the experiences of 859 Victorian adults from culturally or racially marginalised communities.

    The vast majority of them – 76% of the survey respondents – had experienced racism in Australia, across many areas of life. These experiences happened at work, in shopping centres, on public transport and on the streets. Some also encountered racism in schools, healthcare, housing, online or when dealing with police.

    But crucially, only 15.5% of them had ever reported any such incident to an organisation.

    Unsurprisingly, one of the reasons why people do not report is that many are not aware of existing reporting options, for example through the federal or states’ human rights commissions.

    For 75.2% of survey respondents, not knowing where and how to report was a key barrier. The only place most people knew about was the police, which was often not seen as appropriate unless the incident involved physical violence.

    Moreover, trust in an effective response by police was generally low. A Muslim woman in one of the focus groups said:

    the biggest reason [for not reporting] is probably not knowing. The obvious is the police station, but then, well, many of us already feel that police won’t do much. But what else is out there?

    High cost, low reward

    An even bigger obstacle is that reporting racism was commonly considered high-cost, but low-reward. Most participants (83.2%) were deterred by the conviction that the process was taking too much time and effort.

    As one Asian-Australian participant stated:

    I imagine the reporting to be a long process. Do I want to go through the process, especially as a migrant. You ask yourself: is it life and death? If not, let me just get on with my day.

    Many highlighted concerns they would not be taken seriously (75.9%) or that reporting would have negative consequences for them or their children (72.8%). They were also concerned about how reporting could negatively affect their career, treatment at school or even their legal resident status.

    An African-Australian man said:

    You know you’re gonna be a double victim. Let’s say at your workplace, if you report racism, straight away […] you become a target.

    No accountability

    These factors shape the discouraging perspective that reporting is a high-cost action.

    But what makes it even worse is the very common conviction, expressed by 90.6% of survey respondents, that “nothing would change” even if they were to report, and that there was no accountability for racist behaviour.

    A Somali-born mother, whose daughter was called a racist slur by her teacher, complained to the school principal, but “he didn’t do anything”. She said her kids and their friends “all agreed that no one would do anything about this”. She said:

    They have this belief that if they make a complaint, it will not go anywhere. They all said the same thing: If you go somewhere, no one will care.

    Another survey participant said reporting racism would have to be worth the effort:

    We need to know that the mental and emotional sacrifice of reporting will be worth it, that it will result in an outcome. Why would I report racism if nothing will be done?

    ‘Don’t rock the boat’

    In addition, there are other psychological factors at play.

    Of those surveyed, 70.1% explained they refrain from reporting because they don’t want to “cause trouble”. In the focus groups, participants often spoke about not wanting to “rock the boat” or refraining from “talking bad, talking about racism because they might hate us”.

    Similarly, others are so determined to “blend in” they feel they have to accept racism. A Chinese-Australian participant explained her community wouldn’t complain because:

    we want to, and try to, fit in. And we have come to accept a little bit of tough treatment.

    Even protecting the perpetrators of racism from harm was described by some as a reason for not reporting:

    I thought by reporting I would hurt her [the perpetrator], and in our culture, we should not be hurting another person.

    What can be done?

    Our research shows racism often goes undetected and unreported due to systemic and cultural barriers. As a result, injustice remains unchallenged and normalised.

    But communities are finding alternative ways of speaking out against racism, often outside formal reporting channels.

    Following our research, for example, three local community-led anti-racism support networks have been set up in parts of Victoria to complement the existing support and reporting system.

    These networks provide trusted and culturally safe spaces and support to those who face racism. They have started to systematically document racism, working towards local evidence that can be used to raise awareness and inform targeted anti-racism actions in the future.

    Networks like these could be introduced around the country to give people more options to come forward.

    We won’t be able to properly address racism while those experiencing it think they won’t be listened to. We all need to ensure racist incidents are taken seriously, responded to promptly and that people are heard.

    Mario Peucker receives funding from the Victorian Government and VicHealth.

    Franka Vaughan receives funding from VicHealth

    Jo Doley received funding from VicHealth.

    Tom Clark receives funding from VicHealth.

    – ref. ‘You become a target’: research shows why many people who experience racism don’t report it – https://theconversation.com/you-become-a-target-research-shows-why-many-people-who-experience-racism-dont-report-it-260092

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

    You’re standing at your front door, facing a five kilometre commute to work. But you don’t have your car, and there’s no bus route. You can walk for an hour – or jump on your bicycle and arrive in 15 minutes, barely breaking a sweat. You choose the latter.

    Many people would make the same choice. It’s estimated that there are more than a billion bikes in the world. Cycling represents one of the most energy-efficient forms of transport ever invented, allowing humans to travel faster and farther while using less energy than walking or running.

    But why exactly does pedalling feel so much easier than pounding the pavement? The answer lies in the elegant biomechanics of how our bodies interact with this two-wheeled machine.

    A wonderfully simple machine

    At its heart, a bicycle is wonderfully simple: two wheels (hence “bi-cycle”), pedals that transfer power through a chain to the rear wheel, and gears that let us fine-tune our effort. But this simplicity masks an engineering that perfectly complements human physiology.

    When we walk or run, we essentially fall forward in a controlled manner, catching ourselves with each step. Our legs must swing through large arcs, lifting our heavy limbs against gravity with every stride. This swinging motion alone consumes a lot of energy. Imagine: how tiring would it be to even swing your arms continuously for an hour?

    On a bicycle, your legs move through a much smaller, circular motion. Instead of swinging your entire leg weight with each step, you’re simply rotating your thighs and calves through a compact pedalling cycle. The energy savings are immediately noticeable.

    But the real efficiency gains come from how bicycles transfer human power to forward motion. When you walk or run, each footstep involves a mini-collision with the ground. You can hear it as the slap of your shoe against the road, and you can feel it as vibrations running through your body. This is energy being lost, literally dissipated as sound and heat after being sent through your muscles and joints.

    Walking and running also involve another source of inefficiency: with each step, you actually brake yourself slightly before propelling forward. As your foot lands ahead of your body, it creates a backwards force that momentarily slows you down. Your muscles then have to work extra hard to overcome this self-imposed braking and accelerate you forward again.

    Kissing the road

    Bicycles use one of the world’s great inventions to solve these problems – wheels.

    Instead of a collision, you get rolling contact – each part of the tyre gently “kisses” the road surface before lifting off. No energy is lost to impact. And because the wheel rotates smoothly so the force acts perfectly vertically on the ground, there’s no stop-start braking action. The force from your pedalling translates directly into forward motion.

    But bicycles also help our muscles to work at their best. Human muscles have a fundamental limitation: the faster they contract, the weaker they become and the more energy they consume.

    This is the famous force-velocity relationship of muscles. And it’s why sprinting feels so much harder than jogging or walking – your muscles are working near their speed limit, becoming less efficient with every stride.

    Bicycle gears solve this problem for us. As you go faster, you can shift to a higher gear so your muscles don’t have to work faster while the bike accelerates. Your muscles can stay in their sweet spot for both force production and energy cost. It’s like having a personal assistant that continuously adjusts your workload to keep you in the peak performance zone.

    Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running.
    The Conversation, CC BY

    Walking sometimes wins out

    But bicycles aren’t always superior.

    On very steep hills of more than about 15% gradient (so you rise 1.5 metres every 10 metres of distance), your legs struggle to generate enough force through the circular pedalling motion to lift you and the bike up the hill. We can produce more force by pushing our legs straight out, so walking (or climbing) becomes more effective.

    Even if roads were built, we wouldn’t pedal up Mount Everest.

    This isn’t the case for downhills. While cycling downhill becomes progressively easier (eventually requiring no energy at all), walking down steep slopes actually becomes harder.

    Once the gradient exceeds about 10% (it drops by one metre for every ten metres of distance), each downhill step creates jarring impacts that waste energy and stress your joints. Walking and running downhill isn’t always as easy as we’d expect.

    Not just a transportation device

    The numbers speak for themselves. Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running. This efficiency comes from minimising three major energy drains: limb movement, ground impact and muscle speed limitations.

    So next time you effortlessly cruise past pedestrians on your morning bike commute, take a moment to appreciate the biomechanical work of art beneath you. Your bicycle isn’t just a transport device, but a perfectly evolved machine that works in partnership with your physiology, turning your raw muscle power into efficient motion.

    Anthony Blazevich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why – https://theconversation.com/cycling-can-be-4-times-more-efficient-than-walking-a-biomechanics-expert-explains-why-257120

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A new exhibition is a thoughtful examination of the lasting relationship between Asia and Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne

    Jacky Cheng, Imaginary Homelands, 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025. Image courtesy and © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    Almost 60 years after former prime minister Harold Holt began to dismantle the White Australia Policy, The Neighbour at the Gate at Sydney’s National Art School Gallery presents a thoughtful examination of the consequences when good neighbours become good friends.

    Street posters promoting the exhibition feature an image of a magpie. Advertising always distorts. Pardu (Tirritpa) by James Tylor, who has Kaurna and Mãori heritage, is a series of groupings of exquisite small bird daguerreotypes. Their shadowed silver surface gives the impression of antiquity, which is Tylor’s intention.

    In Kaurna, the names of birds come from the songs they sing. This is also how birds are named in many Asian languages. Onomatopoeia makes a bridge between cultures. A QR code on the wall next to each grouped images of birds allows the viewer to hear blends of birdsong with human music.

    James Tylor, Pardu (detail), 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025.
    Image courtesy the artist and the National Art School © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    Remembering the past

    The visitor enters the exhibition through Imaginary Homelands, Jacky Cheng’s installation in the shape of a traditional Chinese paifang (牌坊).

    The 1,110 strips of paper, with fragments of Chinese characters, represent a poem she learnt as child in Kuala Lumpur. But some of the language has been lost by the distortions of time. She now lives on Yawuru country (Broome), an Australian town with close links to many South East Asian cultures.

    In remembering her past, she grasps elements of her Malay Chinese heritage.

    Dennis Golding’s Bingo is possibly as fragmented a memory as Cheng’s. Golding, a Kamilaroi/Gamilaraay man, has made a tribute to the community space his Nan and Aunty created in an abandoned terrace house in the Block at Redfern, where at night they would play bingo.

    Dennis Golding, Bingo, 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025.
    Image courtesy and © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    Each of the etchings scattered across the wall is the size of brick; each quotes small details of community life in Redfern before it was “discovered” by the gentrifiers. The exquisite etchings appear to be scattered at random, but a careful look will show the word “Bingo” in white in the spaces on the wall.

    Elham Eshraghian-Haakansson’s God of War is a beautiful and sensual video on love, rage, reconciliation and the emotional journey of being a refugee.

    Elham Eshraghian-Haakansson, God of War, 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025.
    Image courtesy and © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    Eshraghian-Haakansson is a second generation Iranian-Australian whose work is shaped in part by the experience of her mother and grandmother, whose Baha’i faith placed them in peril in 1979 after the Ayatollahs seized power. The different segments of this elegant video are deliberately broken by rough insertions, giving it a sense of a work reclaimed from history.

    Along the water

    Jenna Mayilema Lee’s complex installation in three parts is both a universal statement on the integration that is the long-term consequence of the meeting of cultures, and a personal statement on her own circumstances.

    Each component – the photographic mural, the video and the billabong sculpture – can be seen as an independent work, but when combined they form magic.

    Lee is truly a modern Australian, descended from Gulumerridjin (Larrakia), Wardaman, KarraJarri people as well as having Japanese, Filipino, Chinese and Anglo ancestors.

    Jenna Mayilema Lee, Portal to the Bangarr (billabong), 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025.
    Image courtesy and © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    The lotus sculptures in the billabong are constructed from copies of immigration documentation. Her Chinese ancestors were living in Australia well before the White Australia policy of 1901. When they needed to travel, bureaucracy demanded multiple forms.

    She has layered the forms with a hand print from one of her Japanese ancestors which, much to her pleasure, she discovered is the same size as her own hand.

    The billabongs of northern Australia, especially in Larrakia country, are filled with lotus plants. The ancestors of the lotus plants of northern Australia floated across the narrow seas from Asia many years ago, in much the same way as people.

    Water does not always bring life. James Nguyen’s Homeopathies_where new trees grow, is a reminder of another consequence of colonisation.

    James Nguyen, Homeopathies_where new trees grow (detail), 2025, installation view, The Neighbour at the Gate, National Art School Gallery, Sydney, 2025.
    Image courtesy the artist and the National Art School © the artist, photograph: Peter Morgan

    As with many other Vietnamese Australians, his family lives near the Parramatta and Duck rivers, west of central Sydney. One of the horrors of the Vietnam war was the way Agent Orange, destroyed both the jungle and the lives of people who came into contact with it.

    Agent Orange was made by Union Carbide, near the Parramatta River. When the factory closed the contaminated site was not properly sealed and the poison seeped into the river.

    Nguyen’s giant floating textile is of made of raw cotton and silk strips, dyed with mud and weeds contaminated by dioxin and Agent Orange. The evil of contamination is countered by clay pinchpot incense holders which line the stairs and entrances to the exhibition.

    The cleansing smoke of incense is another link between the cultures of Asia and those of Australia’s First Nations people.

    The Neighbour at the Gate is a generous and inclusive exhibition, a reminder of a common humanity. Clothilde Bullen, who heads the curatorium with Micheal Do and Zali Morgan, sees art as a way of countering divisions in society.

    She told me:

    If we are to work as a society and if we are to work as a community then we have to call people in, and we have to be prepared to embrace that difference. And so that is really what this show is all about.

    The Neighbour at the Gate is at the National Art School Galleries, Sydney, until October 18.

    Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council

    – ref. A new exhibition is a thoughtful examination of the lasting relationship between Asia and Australia – https://theconversation.com/a-new-exhibition-is-a-thoughtful-examination-of-the-lasting-relationship-between-asia-and-australia-259040

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The ACT wants dog owners to spend 3 hours a day with their pet. But quality, not quantity, matters most

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

    Photo by Anna Tarazevich/Pexels

    Authorities in the ACT have released draft regulations for the welfare of dogs. One inclusion getting attention is a guideline “requiring all dogs to have a minimum of three hours of human contact daily”.

    The purpose of this code is to help dog owners meet their obligations under existing animal welfare laws in the ACT, which see dogs as sentient animals. This recognises that dogs can experience pleasure and pain, and that these feelings matter.

    If we accept dogs are sentient then we must think about their welfare and how to provide for them the best life possible. So, will three hours of human contact guarantee a good life?

    Three hours across a 24-hour period is probably achievable for many people, once you factor in walks, pats, feeding time and some attention at home.

    But just mandating a certain number of hours isn’t the answer, in my view.

    What matters most is what you do when you’re with your dog to meet their specific emotional and physical needs – and how long you’re leaving them alone.

    Human contact is a good thing for dogs

    Countries around the world are taking more notice of the needs of dogs.

    In Germany, the law requires owners to walk their dogs twice a day for at least an hour each time.

    Swedish rules require that “dogs must have their need for social contact satisfied”.

    Dogs are descended from the grey wolf – an animal which would certainly not integrate easily into a human group.

    But over thousands of years, humans have selectively bred dogs so they want, and even depend on, human contact.

    We’ve genetically selected dogs to want to be with us, and unfortunately this has led to many not coping well when they’re alone.

    The ACT’s new draft code recognises this, noting that “dogs are social animals and must not be kept alone for long periods of time”.

    An estimated 14–29% of dogs have problems related to separation from their owners.

    Signs of separation-related problems may include:

    • barking
    • escaping
    • destructive digging
    • destructive chewing.

    Other problems for inactive dogs might include being overweight, feeling bored or even getting depressed.

    Dogs have been genetically shaped to want and even depend on human contact.
    Photo by Helena Lopes/Pexels

    Quality time matters most

    It is likely the quality of time spent with our dogs is more important than the quantity.

    Some dogs like lying on the sofa bingeing the latest series with you. Others might prefer long walks, or a strenuous game of fetch.

    And dogs have different needs. A one-year-old dog might love going for a big walk, but a 12-year-old dog with arthritis may find that painful. Some dogs love chasing balls, and others would rather watch grass grow.

    What’s more, the amount of time a dog can handle alone will depend on the animal. For some, only five minutes away from their human would be long enough to send them into total meltdown.

    What’s important is what you do with your dog when you’re together, to meet their needs.

    Complicating matters further, dog owners vary in how they want to spend time with their pet.

    That’s why this guideline may struggle to find community acceptance. Good dog owners realise that what you do with your dog is most important, and needs to be tailored to the dog’s emotional needs, rather than just mandating a certain time goal.

    That said, the draft code may prompt all dog owners (including not-so-conscientious ones) to consider whether they spend enough time with their dogs.

    And it may prompt people considering buying a dog to think about whether they can commit three hours a day.

    The regulation may also encourage people to think more about fun things to do with their dog, such as develop (or continue) a play routine. Creative play can help boost attachment between dog and human.

    An easy bonus we can give our dogs is to be present with them.

    If you can’t manage three hours, just aim for what you can and try to carve out special time with them (perhaps by reducing your screen time where possible).

    The most important part is to see if you can observe what happens when they’re alone (you could set up a camera). Try to make changes and seek professional advice if you can see their welfare is at risk.

    An easy bonus we can give our dogs is to be present with them.
    Photo by Haberdoedas Photography/Pexels

    An important discussion

    Effective rules also need to be enforceable.

    It is highly unlikely sufficient resourcing would be available in the ACT to check the time all dog-owners spend with their dogs each day. How this would be calculated and recorded remains unclear.

    But even if this three-hours-a-day guideline is dropped in the ACT’s final code, it’s prompted an important discussion and will overall improve the welfare of dogs.

    Susan Hazel is affiliated with the RSPCA South Australia and the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia.

    – ref. The ACT wants dog owners to spend 3 hours a day with their pet. But quality, not quantity, matters most – https://theconversation.com/the-act-wants-dog-owners-to-spend-3-hours-a-day-with-their-pet-but-quality-not-quantity-matters-most-260694

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hendra virus has killed a horse in Queensland. Should we be worried?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vinod Balasubramaniam, Associate Professor (Molecular Virology), Monash University

    CJKPhoto/Getty

    The death of an unvaccinated horse from Hendra virus this week in southeast Queensland is the state’s first reported case in three years.

    Before that, Australia’s last case was in July 2023, when another unvaccinated horse died in New South Wales.

    The new incident is a stark reminder that, while rare, this persistent virus poses a deadly threat to both animals and humans.

    So, what is Hendra virus? And how is it passed on? Here’s what you need to know.

    What is Hendra virus?

    Hendra virus is found only in Australia. It is named after the Brisbane suburb Hendra, where it was first identified in 1994 – an outbreak that killed 13 horses and one human.

    Hendra is a highly pathogenic virus, meaning it causes severe, often fatal illness.

    It is a kind of henipavirus, which belongs to the large family of Paramyxoviridae. Henipaviruses such as Hendra are zoonotic, which means they occur naturally in animals but can also be passed on to humans.

    Australia’s native flying foxes or fruit bats (the genus Pteropus) are Hendra’s natural “reservoir host”. They carry the virus without symptoms.

    Outbreaks occur when the virus is transmitted to horses and occasionally to humans through infected horses. It is not known to affect other animals.

    Can humans get Hendra?

    Although alarming, human cases of Hendra virus remain exceedingly rare. Only seven confirmed cases have been reported since 1994, resulting in four deaths.

    Each human case occurred after close contact with an infected horse or horses.

    Those who contracted Hendra were typically veterinarians or horse trainers exposed to blood, mucus or other bodily fluids while caring for the horse or determining its cause of death.

    Direct transmission of Hendra from bats to humans, or between humans, has not been documented.

    How does it spread?

    Hendra exists year-round in flying fox populations, who shed virus particles in bodily fluids, but don’t get sick themselves.

    Horses mainly become infected through grass, feed or drinking water that has been contaminated by flying fox saliva, urine or feces. Although horse-to-horse transmission is possible, it is not common.

    An infected horse will show rapid symptoms including:

    • fever
    • breathing difficulties
    • nasal discharge
    • increased heart rate
    • neurological signs, such as muscle twitching, loss of coordination, and disorientation.

    The infection progresses rapidly. In around 75% of cases, death follows within 48 to 72 hrs of symptoms beginning.

    How dangerous is Hendra for horses?

    Cases are infrequent but severe. Hendra has killed over 100 horses since it was identified in 1994.

    Around 75–80% of infected horses either die naturally or are euthanised due to welfare concerns. This high death rate underscores the need for preventive measures.

    Vaccination is the main way to prevent infection in horses. No vaccinated horses have developed the disease since a highly effective vaccine became available in 2012.

    Veterinary authorities strongly recommend vaccination for horses, especially in Queensland and northern New South Wales, regions historically affected by the virus.

    Other preventive measures include: placing feed and water containers away from areas frequented by flying foxes, regular stable cleaning, and keeping horses in stables overnight during months when bats are most active.

    This is typically May to October, sometimes known as “Hendra season”. But there are signs climate change and habitat destruction may be changing when and where flying foxes roost and potentially worsening the risk of outbreak.

    How to prevent human infection

    There is no vaccine for humans against Hendra virus.

    Preventing virus transmission from horses to humans requires strict biosecurity and hygiene protocols.

    People who work with potentially infected horses must use personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, eye protection and disposable gowns.

    Rigorous hand hygiene practices – such as thorough washing with soap and water or alcohol-based sanitisers after horse contact – are vital.

    If you suspect your horse is sick, avoid direct contact and get veterinary help straight away.

    Vinod Balasubramaniam receives funding from the Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Malaysia.

    – ref. Hendra virus has killed a horse in Queensland. Should we be worried? – https://theconversation.com/hendra-virus-has-killed-a-horse-in-queensland-should-we-be-worried-260586

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Guests at a feast in Iran’s Zagros Mountains 11,000 years ago brought wild boars from all across the land

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Petra Vaiglova, Lecturer in Archaeological Science, Australian National University

    Kathryn Killackey

    Have you ever stopped by the grocery store on your way to a dinner party to grab a bottle of wine? Did you grab the first one you saw, or did you pause to think about the available choices and deliberate over where you wanted your gift to be from?

    The people who lived in western Iran around 11,000 years ago had the same idea – but in practice it looked a little different. In our latest research, my colleagues and I studied the remains of ancient feasts at Asiab in the Zagros Mountains where people gathered in communal celebration.

    The feasters left behind the skulls of 19 wild boars, which they packed neatly together and sealed inside a pit within a round building. Butchery marks on the boar skulls show the animals were used for feasting, but until now we did not know where the animals came from.

    By examining the microscopic growth patterns and chemical signatures inside the tooth enamel of five of these boars, we found at least some of them had been brought to the site from a substantial distance away, transported over difficult mountainous terrain. Bringing these boars to the feast – when other boars were available locally – would have taken an enormous amount of effort.

    A big feast from before the dawn of agriculture

    Feasting activities are widely documented in the archaeological record, primarily from communities that rely on agriculture to generate a food surplus. In fact, it has been suggested feasting may have been a driving force behind the adoption of agriculture, although this theory has been widely debated.

    While evidence from after the adoption of agriculture is plentiful from all reaches of the globe, evidence pre-dating agriculture is more sparse.

    What is special about the feast at Asiab is not only its early date and that it brought together people from wider reaches of the region. It is the fact that people who participated in this feast invested substantial amounts of effort, so that their contributions involved an element of geographic symbolism.

    Food and culture

    Food and long-standing culinary traditions form an integral component of cultures all over the globe. It is for this reason that holidays, festivals, and other socially meaningful events commonly involve food.

    We cannot imagine Christmas without the Christmas meal, for example, or Eid without the food gifts, or Passover without matzo ball soup.

    What’s more, food makes for gifts that are highly appreciated. The more a food item is reminiscent of a specific country or location, the better. It is for this reason that cheese from France, crocodile jerky from Australia, and black chicken from Korea make for good currency in the world of gift giving.

    Just like today, people who lived in the past noticed the importance of reciprocity and place, and formulated customs to celebrate them publicly.

    At ancient feasts at Stonehenge, for example, research has shown people ate pigs brought from wide reaches of Britain. Our new findings provide the first glimpse of similar behaviour in a pre-agricultural context.

    How to read a tooth

    Did you know that teeth grow like trees? Much like trees and their annual growth rings, teeth deposit visible layers of enamel and dentine during growth.

    These growth layers track daily patterns of development and changes in the dietary intake of certain chemical elements. In our study, we sliced the teeth of wild boars from Asiab in a way that allowed us to count these daily growth layers under the microscope.

    We then used this information to measure the composition of enamel secreted at approximately weekly intervals. The variability in the isotopic ratios we measured suggests at least some of the wild boars used in the feast at Asiab came from considerable distance: possibly from at least 70 km, or two or more days’ travel.

    The most likely explanation is that they were hunted in farther reaches of the region and transported to the site as contributions to the feast.

    Reciprocity is at the heart of social interactions. Just like a thoughtfully chosen bottle of wine does today, those boars brought from far and wide may have served to commemorate a place, an event and social bonds through gift-giving.

    The work was funded by Early Career Research grants from Griffith University and the Society for Archaeological Science.

    – ref. Guests at a feast in Iran’s Zagros Mountains 11,000 years ago brought wild boars from all across the land – https://theconversation.com/guests-at-a-feast-in-irans-zagros-mountains-11-000-years-ago-brought-wild-boars-from-all-across-the-land-260179

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Guests at a feast in Iran’s Zagros Mountains 11,000 years ago brought wild boars from all across the land

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Petra Vaiglova, Lecturer in Archaeological Science, Australian National University

    Kathryn Killackey

    Have you ever stopped by the grocery store on your way to a dinner party to grab a bottle of wine? Did you grab the first one you saw, or did you pause to think about the available choices and deliberate over where you wanted your gift to be from?

    The people who lived in western Iran around 11,000 years ago had the same idea – but in practice it looked a little different. In our latest research, my colleagues and I studied the remains of ancient feasts at Asiab in the Zagros Mountains where people gathered in communal celebration.

    The feasters left behind the skulls of 19 wild boars, which they packed neatly together and sealed inside a pit within a round building. Butchery marks on the boar skulls show the animals were used for feasting, but until now we did not know where the animals came from.

    By examining the microscopic growth patterns and chemical signatures inside the tooth enamel of five of these boars, we found at least some of them had been brought to the site from a substantial distance away, transported over difficult mountainous terrain. Bringing these boars to the feast – when other boars were available locally – would have taken an enormous amount of effort.

    A big feast from before the dawn of agriculture

    Feasting activities are widely documented in the archaeological record, primarily from communities that rely on agriculture to generate a food surplus. In fact, it has been suggested feasting may have been a driving force behind the adoption of agriculture, although this theory has been widely debated.

    While evidence from after the adoption of agriculture is plentiful from all reaches of the globe, evidence pre-dating agriculture is more sparse.

    What is special about the feast at Asiab is not only its early date and that it brought together people from wider reaches of the region. It is the fact that people who participated in this feast invested substantial amounts of effort, so that their contributions involved an element of geographic symbolism.

    Food and culture

    Food and long-standing culinary traditions form an integral component of cultures all over the globe. It is for this reason that holidays, festivals, and other socially meaningful events commonly involve food.

    We cannot imagine Christmas without the Christmas meal, for example, or Eid without the food gifts, or Passover without matzo ball soup.

    What’s more, food makes for gifts that are highly appreciated. The more a food item is reminiscent of a specific country or location, the better. It is for this reason that cheese from France, crocodile jerky from Australia, and black chicken from Korea make for good currency in the world of gift giving.

    Just like today, people who lived in the past noticed the importance of reciprocity and place, and formulated customs to celebrate them publicly.

    At ancient feasts at Stonehenge, for example, research has shown people ate pigs brought from wide reaches of Britain. Our new findings provide the first glimpse of similar behaviour in a pre-agricultural context.

    How to read a tooth

    Did you know that teeth grow like trees? Much like trees and their annual growth rings, teeth deposit visible layers of enamel and dentine during growth.

    These growth layers track daily patterns of development and changes in the dietary intake of certain chemical elements. In our study, we sliced the teeth of wild boars from Asiab in a way that allowed us to count these daily growth layers under the microscope.

    We then used this information to measure the composition of enamel secreted at approximately weekly intervals. The variability in the isotopic ratios we measured suggests at least some of the wild boars used in the feast at Asiab came from considerable distance: possibly from at least 70 km, or two or more days’ travel.

    The most likely explanation is that they were hunted in farther reaches of the region and transported to the site as contributions to the feast.

    Reciprocity is at the heart of social interactions. Just like a thoughtfully chosen bottle of wine does today, those boars brought from far and wide may have served to commemorate a place, an event and social bonds through gift-giving.

    The work was funded by Early Career Research grants from Griffith University and the Society for Archaeological Science.

    – ref. Guests at a feast in Iran’s Zagros Mountains 11,000 years ago brought wild boars from all across the land – https://theconversation.com/guests-at-a-feast-in-irans-zagros-mountains-11-000-years-ago-brought-wild-boars-from-all-across-the-land-260179

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Dawson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology and National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland

    Around 41% of Australians report they’ve used cannabis at some point in their life.

    Research estimates that 22% of recreational cannabis consumers meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder. This condition can make it difficult to control how often or how much cannabis they use.

    For medicinal cannabis, our research estimated the percentage of cannabis consumers who meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder was similar, around 25%.

    These figures may come as a surprise, as the perceived risks associated with cannabis have been steadily declining in many countries.

    So, how can you tell if your cannabis use is a problem?

    What does cannabis use disorder look like?

    A person might use cannabis to relax after a stressful day at work or to help them sleep. At first, they might do so every now and then. But over time, they might come to rely on using cannabis to stop feeling uncomfortable, stressed and sleepless.

    They might begin to use cannabis daily to feel “normal”.

    With regular use, the body develops tolerance to the effects of cannabis. So the person needs to use more cannabis to get the same “high”.

    People who consume cannabis might use more cannabis than they intended or might have problems performing at work because they’re high at the start of the work day, or they fail to do important things such as paying bills, and buy cannabis instead.

    The person might keep using cannabis despite noticing their use is causing clouded thoughts, memory issues and anxiety.

    Friends and family might notice problems with their cannabis use and recommend they stop or cut back. This can be difficult for people with cannabis use disorder because they may feel anxious, irritable and have difficulty sleeping if they suddenly stop using cannabis.

    Some people who use cannabis can’t function like they used to.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    These withdrawal symptoms can make it harder to quit or cut back. Withdrawal symptoms are quickly relieved by using cannabis, creating a cycle of relapse.

    How is it diagnosed?

    Health professionals use specific criteria to diagnose a cannabis use disorder.

    According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a person may have a cannabis use disorder if they show at least two symptoms within one year. Symptoms can include:

    • using larger amounts over longer periods than intended

    • cravings for cannabis, where the person feels a strong urge or desire to use cannabis

    • trying and failing to cut back on cannabis use

    • continuing cannabis use despite worsening physical or psychological problems

    • failing to fulfil major role obligations at work, school or home

    • needing to use a greater amount for the same effect, known as tolerance

    • experiencing withdrawal symptoms such as feeling anxious, irritable or having trouble sleeping.

    According to the DSM, two to three symptoms indicate a mild cannabis use disorder and few problems. A moderate disorder involves four to five symptoms, while six-plus symptoms means a severe disorder.

    Who is at greatest risk?

    In both recreational and medicinal consumers, the risk of cannabis use disorder is higher for people who use cannabis:

    • frequently, especially daily

    • by smoking or vaping

    • with higher levels of THC or in larger amounts.

    Other risk factors are starting cannabis use at a younger age and using cannabis to relieve symptoms of anxiety, depression and chronic pain.

    What’s the relationship with chronic pain?

    People struggling to manage their pain may turn to cannabis hoping to find relief.

    However, recent studies question the effectiveness of cannabis to manage pain.

    People who use cannabis to relieve chronic pain often use it more frequently.
    AYO Production/Shutterstock

    So people may increase how often they use cannabis or use more potent cannabis products in an unsuccessful attempt to control their pain.

    This can lead to a cannabis use disorder, making it more difficult to manage their pain and impairing their ability to cope with the demands of everyday life.

    How to reduce your risk

    Legal changes in many countries, including Australia, have allowed greater access to cannabis for medical reasons. People now often use cannabis for both recreational and medical reasons (dual-use).

    If you use cannabis, reduce your risk of developing a cannabis use disorder by avoiding daily use and avoiding cannabis products with high THC.

    If you’re concerned about your cannabis use, consult your medical practitioner or contact the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 for confidential advice.

    Wayne Hall has in the past five years been paid to advise the WHO on the adverse health effects of cannabis and to advise the Commonwealth Department of Health on the safety and effectiveness of medical uses of cannabis-based medicines.

    Danielle Dawson and Valentina Lorenzetti do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-cannabis-use-disorder-and-how-do-you-know-if-you-have-a-problem-256098

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

    During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

    Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

    The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

    Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

    This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

    Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

    The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

    One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

    The shifting boundaries of maritime law

    One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

    After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

    In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

    UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

    One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

    While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

    While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

    The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

    What can be learned?

    Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

    Belinda Clarence does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

    The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

    Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

    We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

    The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
    headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

    The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

    Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

    Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

    Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

    Impacts across seasons and careers

    Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

    By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

    A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

    While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

    One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

    The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

    Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

    Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025.
    Getty Images

    Potential benefits of new headgear materials

    Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

    We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

    Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

    The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

    We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

    The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

    Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

    Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

    – ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –