Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ramona Vijeyarasa, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

In 2024, artificial intelligence (AI) voice assistants worldwide surpassed 8 billion, more than one per person on the planet. These assistants are helpful, polite – and almost always default to female.

Their names also carry gendered connotations. For example, Apple’s Siri – a Scandinavian feminine name – means “beautiful woman who leads you to victory”.

Meanwhile, when IBM’s Watson for Oncology launched in 2015 to help doctors process medical data, it was given a male voice. The message is clear: women serve and men instruct.

This is not harmless branding – it’s a design choice that reinforces existing stereotypes about the roles women and men play in society.

Nor is this merely symbolic. These choices have real-world consequences, normalising gendered subordination and risking abuse.

The dark side of ‘friendly’ AI

Recent research reveals the extent of harmful interactions with feminised AI.

A 2025 study found up to 50% of human–machine exchanges were verbally abusive.

Another study from 2020 placed the figure between 10% and 44%, with conversations often containing sexually explicit language.

Yet the sector is not engaging in systemic change, with many developers today still reverting to pre-coded responses to verbal abuse. For example, “Hmm, I’m not sure what you meant by that question”.

These patterns raise real concerns that such behaviour could spill over into social relationships.

Gender sits at the heart of the problem.

One 2023 experiment showed 18% of user interactions with a female-embodied agent focused on sex, compared to 10% for a male embodiment and just 2% for a non-gendered robot.

These figures may underestimate the problem, given the difficulty of detecting suggestive speech. In some cases, the numbers are staggering. Brazil’s Bradesco bank reported that its feminised chatbot received 95,000 sexually harassing messages in a single year.

Even more disturbing is how quickly abuse escalates.

Microsoft’s Tay chatbot, released on Twitter during its testing phase in 2016, lasted just 16 hours before users trained it to spew racist and misogynistic slurs.

In Korea, Luda was manipulated into responding to sexual requests as an obedient “sex slave”. Yet for some in the Korean online community, this was a “crime without a victim”.

In reality, the design choices behind these technologies – female voices, deferential responses, playful deflections – create a permissive environment for gendered aggression.

These interactions mirror and reinforce real-world misogyny, teaching users that commanding, insulting and sexualising “her” is acceptable. When abuse becomes routine in digital spaces, we must seriously consider the risk that it will spill into offline behaviour.

Ignoring concerns about gender bias

Regulation is struggling to keep pace with the growth of this problem. Gender-based discrimination is rarely considered high risk and often assumed fixable through design.

While the European Union’s AI Act requires risk assessments for high-risk uses and prohibits systems deemed an “unacceptable risk”, the majority of AI assistants will not be considered “high risk”.

Gender stereotyping or normalising verbal abuse or harassment falls short of the current standards for prohibited AI under the European Union’s AI Act. Extreme cases, such as voice assistant technologies that distort a person’s behaviour and promote dangerous conduct would, for example, come within the law and be prohibited.

While Canada mandates gender-based impact assessments for government systems, the private sector is not covered.

These are important steps. But they are still limited and also rare exceptions to the norm.

Most jurisdictions have no rules addressing gender stereotyping in AI design or its consequences. Where regulations exist, they prioritise transparency and accountability, overshadowing (or simply ignoring) concerns about gender bias.

In Australia, the government has signalled it will rely on existing frameworks rather than craft AI-specific rules.

This regulatory vacuum matters because AI is not static. Every sexist command, every abusive interaction, feeds back into systems that shape future outputs. Without intervention, we risk hardcoding human misogyny into the digital infrastructure of everyday life.

Not all assistant technologies – even those gendered as female – are harmful. They can enable, educate and advance women’s rights. In Kenya, for example, sexual and reproductive health chatbots have improved youth access to information compared to traditional tools.

The challenge is striking a balance: fostering innovation while setting parameters to ensure standards are met, rights respected and designers held accountable when they are not.

A systemic problem

The problem isn’t just Siri or Alexa – it’s systemic.

Women make up only 22% of AI professionals globally – and their absence from design tables means technologies are built on narrow perspectives.

Meanwhile, a 2015 survey of over 200 senior women in Silicon Valley found 65% had experienced unwanted sexual advances from a supervisor. The culture that shapes AI is deeply unequal.

Hopeful narratives about “fixing bias” through better design or ethics guidelines ring hollow without enforcement; voluntary codes cannot dismantle entrenched norms.

Legislation must recognise gendered harm as high-risk, mandate gender-based impact assessments and compel companies to show they have minimised such harms. Penalties must apply when they fail.

Regulation alone is not enough. Education, especially in the tech sector, is crucial to understanding the impact of gendered defaults in voice assistants. These tools are products of human choices and those choices perpetuate a world where women – real or virtual – are cast as servient, submissive or silent.

This article is based on a collaboration with Julie Kowald, UTS Rapido Social Impact’s Principal Software Engineer.

Ramona Vijeyarasa receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Program (DP250100382); the Trawalla Foundation; and the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia.

– ref. Most AI assistants are feminine – and it’s fuelling dangerous stereotypes and abuse – https://theconversation.com/most-ai-assistants-are-feminine-and-its-fuelling-dangerous-stereotypes-and-abuse-272335

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/most-ai-assistants-are-feminine-and-its-fuelling-dangerous-stereotypes-and-abuse-272335/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Macquarie University

A ziggurat (also spelled ziqqurat) was a raised platform with four sloping sides that looked like a tiered pyramid.

Ziggurats were common in ancient Mesopotamia (roughly modern Iraq) from around 4,000 to 500 BCE.

Unlike the Egyptian pyramids, they were not places of royal burials, but temples dedicated to the patron deity of a city.

How were they made?

Stone was relatively rare in Mesopotamia, so ziggurats were mainly made of sun-dried mudbricks coated with limestone and bitumen (a sticky, tar-like substance).

Their sides were decorated with grooved stripes and were often plastered with lime mortar or gypsum and glazed in various colours.

Unlike the pyramids, they had no internal chambers. The actual shrine was at the top of the structure where the god resided. It was accessible by steps and was believed to be a meeting point between heaven and earth.

Ziggurats towered over the centre of ancient Mesopotamian cities; as archaeological evidence indicates, they were typically built next to the palace or the temple of a city’s patron god to stress the role of the god in supporting the king.

How the Anu ziggurat became the White Temple

The Anu ziggurat, the oldest known, was built at Uruk (modern-day Warka, about 250 kilometres south of Baghdad) by the Sumerians around 4,000 BCE. (The Sumerians were an ancient people, among the first known to have established cities, who lived roughly in the area of modern Iraq, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.)

This ziggurat was dedicated to Anu, their sky god. Sometime between 3,500 and 3,000 BCE, the so-called White Temple was built on top of it.

The White Temple, approximately 12 metres high, was so named because it was entirely whitewashed inside and out. It must have shone dazzlingly in the sun.
The Sumerian culture was eventually taken over by the Akkadian Empire, followed by the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires. Throughout the rise and fall of empires, ziggurats continued to be built in the Ancient Near East.

In fact, the word ziggurat comes from the Akkadian verb zaqâru, meaning “to build high”.

Other famous ziggurats

Assyrian kings built an impressive ziggurat in their capital, Nimrud (about 30 kilometres south of Mosul). This ziggurat was dedicated to Ninurta, a Sumerian and Akkadian god of war and victory.

Ninurta’s father, the god Enlil, was worshipped at the ziggurat of the sacred city Nippur, in modern-day Iraq.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II dedicated the ziggurat Etemenanki to the Babylonian king of gods, Marduk. The name Etemenanki means the Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth.

Etemenanki was located north of a different temple called the Esagil, which was Marduk’s main temple in Babylon.

Etemenanki likely inspired the story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament. Genesis 11 refers to a “tower” built of mud bricks instead of stone, which was intended to reach the heavens.

The building, perceived as an act of human pride, angered God, who caused the people to speak different languages and scattered them across the Earth.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Marduk often chose a woman to spend the night with him in the top-most shrine of his ziggurat.

The text has been often understood to refer to a “sacred marriage” rite involving the sexual union of a woman with the god.

However, it seems more likely to have been an incubation rite, when the god’s will is revealed to someone sleeping in a sacred place.

Constant preservation

Because of the relative lack of durability of mud bricks, ziggurats required constant preservation.

Etemenanki in Babylon had to be rebuilt several times until Alexander the Great ordered his soldiers to destroy it in 323 BCE so as to rebuild it from scratch.

However, Alexander’s premature death (historians continue to debate what he died of) meant the task had to be completed by his successors. But whether the rebuilding task was ever completed is uncertain.

Better preserved ziggurats include the Ziggurat of Ur (in the region of modern-day Tell el-Muqayyar in Iraq). The powerful king, Ur-Nammu, dedicated this ziggurat to the moon god, Nanna or Sîn, around 2100 BCE.

Another example is the ziggurat of Chogha Zanbil in modern Iran, which was built around 1250 BCE. It now stands only 24.5 metres tall, instead of the original estimated 53 metres.

A lasting influence on architecture

Ziggurats influenced architecture long after their demise, including the new tiered “skyscrapers” of the art deco era in the 20th century.

Modern ziggurats ended up dotting the New York skyline.

And, if you look closely, you’ll see that there’s a fair amount of ziggurat about the Empire State Building.

These modern examples serve as a fascinating reminder of a design and construction language that goes back to the Middle East over six millennia ago.

Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides receives funding from the Gerda Henkel Foundation.

Michael B. Charles 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. In ancient Mesopotamia, what was a ziggurat? – https://theconversation.com/in-ancient-mesopotamia-what-was-a-ziggurat-268658

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/in-ancient-mesopotamia-what-was-a-ziggurat-268658/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

As parents prepare for another school year, there’s one subject that often gets overlooked: money.

Financial literacy isn’t just about numbers. It’s about building skills that will shape your child’s future decisions, from buying their first car to planning for retirement.

The good news? You don’t need to be a finance expert to teach these lessons. Start with age-appropriate concepts and build from there. Here’s what to focus on at each stage.

Primary school (ages 6–12): Making money real

Young children understand money better when they can see it and touch it. This is the perfect time to introduce pocket money – a regular allowance that teaches them money doesn’t appear magically. And once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Start small. Five dollars a week gives a seven-year-old enough to make choices without overwhelming them. Should they buy that chocolate bar now, or save for three weeks to get the Lego set they really want?

This waiting game is crucial. It teaches delayed gratification, which research shows is linked to better financial outcomes later in life. When your child saves for weeks to buy something they’ve been eyeing, they’re learning that big goals require patience and planning.

Use clear jars or piggy banks so kids can literally watch their money grow. It makes saving visible and satisfying. Some families use a three-jar system: spending, saving, and sharing (for charity or gifts). This introduces the idea that money serves multiple purposes.

Let them make small mistakes too. If your eight-year-old blows their entire allowance on stickers and regrets it by Wednesday, that’s a five-dollar lesson that could save them thousands later.

Secondary school (ages 12–18): Real-world money management

Teenagers are ready for more complex financial concepts. This is when you shift from teaching about money to teaching with money.

Open a bank account together. Walk them through how banks work. Tell them that banks are not just storing money, they’re businesses that pay you interest to keep your money there and charge interest when you borrow. Explain that the interest you earn on savings is usually tiny, while the interest you pay on debts is much higher.

Introduce the concept of debit cards, but explain how they differ from credit. A debit card only spends money you already have. This is a good time to show them how to check their account balance and track spending through banking apps.

Talk about wants versus needs. Your teenager needs school shoes. They want the $200 branded pair. This isn’t about saying no. It’s about showing them trade-offs. “If you want those shoes, you’ll need to contribute $100 from your savings. Are they worth it?”

If your teenager gets a part-time job, teach them to check they’re being paid correctly. The Fair Work Ombudsman website has easy tools to calculate award rates, the minimum pay rates set for different industries and age groups. A 16-year-old working in retail should know what they’re entitled to earn.

This is also the time to introduce the concept of paying yourself first. When money comes in, savings come out first. Even putting aside 10% teaches the habit of treating savings as non-negotiable – it’s not whatever is left over.

School leavers (ages 18+): Building wealth basics

Young adults entering work face a new financial landscape. They’re earning more, but expenses grow too, such as transport, social life, and maybe rent.

Start with superannuation. This is money an employer must put aside for an employee’s retirement. It may seem irrelevant when your child is 18, but a young person who understands super early has a massive advantage.

Here’s why: compound growth. Money invested at 18 has 40+ years to grow. Even small amounts become significant. If you put an extra $20 a week into super from age 18, you could have at least an extra $300,000 by retirement, thanks to compound returns. That’s the snowball effect, when the investment gains on your contributions start earning returns as well.

Introduce investing apps, but with caution. Digital investing apps such as CommSec Pocket and Stake make investing accessible with small amounts. They let young people buy into diversified funds, which are collections of many different investments, rather than trying to pick individual shares.

Explain the fundamental trade-off: higher potential returns come with higher risk. Shares can grow more than savings accounts, but they can also fall in value quickly.

Teach them about the share market without jargon. When you buy shares, you own a tiny piece of a company. If the company does well, your share becomes more valuable. If it doesn’t, your share can lose value.

Diversification – spreading money across many companies – reduces the risk of losing everything if one company fails.

The lessons that matter most

Financial education isn’t really just about money. It’s about decision-making, delayed gratification, and understanding that every choice has trade-offs. It’s a life skill you build over time, one conversation and one decision at a time.

The most valuable lesson you can teach at any age? Money is a tool, not a goal. It gives you choices and security. Teaching your children to use that tool wisely is one of the greatest gifts you can give them.

Start these conversations early. Make them normal. And remember, you’re teaching as much by how you handle money as by what you say about it. Children notice when you compare prices, when you talk about saving for holidays, when you decide something isn’t worth the price.

Read more:
When should you start? How much should you give? How to make sure pocket money teaches your kids financial skills

Angel Zhong 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. Back to school: what are the money lessons to teach your kids at every age? – https://theconversation.com/back-to-school-what-are-the-money-lessons-to-teach-your-kids-at-every-age-272075

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/back-to-school-what-are-the-money-lessons-to-teach-your-kids-at-every-age-272075/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yaqoot Fatima, Professor of Sleep Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

For many families, the holidays mean sleep routines go out the window. Bedtimes drift later, screens stay on into the late evening, sleep-ins become the norm.

But as term time rolls around, parents start to dread what’s coming – getting overtired, half-asleep kids up, dressed and out the door on time.

We are experts in sleep health. With a little planning and patience, you can bring sleep back into your routine without turning bedtime into a nightmare.

The science behind holiday sleep drift

During the school term, children’s sleep–wake cycles are usually regulated by fixed daily schedules and predictable bedtimes. These play an important role in stabilising circadian rhythms (the internal body clock). On school days, children are typically exposed to morning daylight and structured indoor lighting, both of which help set the body clock.

During holidays, children are more likely to have increased evening exposure to screens and artificial lighting, which can delay melatonin release – the hormone that promotes sleep.

Understandably, sleep also becomes less regular. This in turn can weaken daily signals which help regulate sleep timing, making it harder to maintain a stable sleep–wake pattern.

What are the signs my child’s sleep is ‘out of whack’?

A child’s sleep schedule may be considered “out of whack” when their sleep timing becomes inconsistent and starts to affect how they function during the day.

Common signs include frequent late bedtimes, difficulty falling asleep, difficulty waking in the morning, and feeling groggy or tired during the day.

You may also notice changes in mood and behaviour, such as irritability, emotional outbursts, reduced concentration or increased restlessness and hyperactivity.

Large day-to-day shifts in sleep and wake times (especially during school holidays) can also be a sign their body clock is out of sync and their sleep schedule needs attention.

Why is it important to have a healthy sleep routine?

If you think about how you feel after a bad or broken night’s sleep, it’s probably not hard to understand why we need a healthy sleep routine.

For children, the stakes are even higher. Sleep supports brain development, consolidates learning, processes emotions and allows the body to recover.

When sleep routines are disrupted children may struggle with concentration and memory, have mood swings and behavioural difficulties, and find it harder to regulate emotions. All these factors can affect school performance and social relationships.

Here’s how to get back into a sleep routine.

1. Have regular bed and wake times

Start by setting a regular bedtime and wake time every day, including weekends, to ensure children get the right amount of sleep for their age. For primary school children, this means around nine to eleven hours a night.

If your child has been staying up later over the holidays, gradually bring bedtime earlier by 15-30 minutes every few nights until it’s back in line with their regular schedule. Do the same for wake time if your child has been sleeping in. Earlier wakings can be encouraged with exposure to daylight in the bedroom and a healthy breakfast to help realign their bodily rhythms.

Napping during the day should be avoided, as naps can interfere with nighttime sleep.

2. Have a wind-down routine

Going to bed earlier may be challenging for some children. A calming bedtime routine of relaxing activities may help some children sleep more easily. A warm bath or shower, soft music, reading a book or cuddling with a caregiver may provide comfort.

If they find it difficult to fall asleep, suggest they come out of their bedroom for a short time (such as 15 to 20 minutes) to do a quiet activity (such as reading or drawing – no screens!). This may help them feel sleepy before returning to bed.

3. Make bedrooms quiet and dark

The sleep environment matters too. A quiet, dark, comfortable space where children feel safe helps tell the brain it’s time to sleep.

Simple reward systems, such as sticker charts, can reinforce routines for younger children. This can show kids sleep is a positive and predictable part of their day.

Do the same things yourself

And don’t forget the role of parents. Good sleep habits also need to be modelled by parents. When older children see their parents maintaining consistent bedtimes and calm wind-down routines, they’re more likely to follow suit.

It won’t be perfect overnight.

Re-establishing healthy sleep patterns may take a week or two.

So start, and stay consistent, and you’ll make back-to-school mornings calmer and easier for everyone.

Yaqoot Fatima receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue.

Jasneek Chawla receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC, Children’s Hospital Foundation
Jasneek Chawla is President and a Board Director for the Australasian Sleep Association.

Danielle Wilson and Nisreen Aouira 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. Did the kids stay up late in the holidays? 3 ways to get sleep routines back – https://theconversation.com/did-the-kids-stay-up-late-in-the-holidays-3-ways-to-get-sleep-routines-back-273811

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/did-the-kids-stay-up-late-in-the-holidays-3-ways-to-get-sleep-routines-back-273811/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Ayre, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, University of Sydney

Many of us already use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT for health advice. They give quick, confident and personalised answers, and the experience can feel more private than speaking to a human.

Now, several AI companies have unveiled dedicated “health and wellness” tools. The most prominent is ChatGPT Health, launched by OpenAI earlier this month.

ChatGPT Health promises to generate more personalised answers, by allowing users to link medical records and wellness apps, upload diagnostic imaging and interpret test results.

But how does it really work? And is it safe?

Most of what we know about this new tool comes from the company that launched it, and questions remain about how ChatGPT Health would work in Australia. Currently, users in Australia can sign up for a waitlist to request access.

Let’s take a look.

AI health advice is booming

Data from 2024 shows 46% of Australians had recently used an AI tool.

Health queries are popular. According to OpenAI, one in four regular ChatGPT users worldwide submit a health-related prompt each week.

Our 2024 study estimated almost one in ten Australians had asked ChatGPT a health query in the previous six months.

This was more common for groups that face challenges finding accessible health information, including:

• people born in a non-English speaking country
• those who spoke another language at home
• people with limited health literacy.

Among those who hadn’t recently used ChatGPT for health, 39% were considering using it soon.

How accurate is the advice?

Independent research consistently shows generative AI tools do sometimes give unsafe health advice, even when they have access to a medical record.

There are several high-profile examples of AI tools giving unsafe health advice, including when ChatGPT allegedly encouraged suicidal thoughts.

Recently, Google removed several AI Overviews on health topics – summaries which appear at the top of search results – after a Guardian investigation found the advice about blood tests results was dangerous and misleading.

This was just one health prompt they studied. There could be much more advice the AI is getting wrong we don’t know about yet.

So, what’s new about ChatGPT Health?

The AI tool has several new features aimed to personalise its answers.

According to OpenAI, users will be able to connect their ChatGPT Health account with medical records and smartphone apps such as MyFitnessPal. This would allow the tool to use personal data about diagnoses, blood tests, and monitoring, as well as relevant context from the user’s general ChatGPT conversations.

OpenAI emphasises information doesn’t flow the other way: conversations in ChatGPT Health are kept separate from general ChatGPT, with stronger security and privacy. The company also says ChatGPT Health data won’t be used to train foundation models.

OpenAI says it has worked with more than 260 clinicians in 60 countries (including Australia), to give feedback on and improve the quality of ChatGPT Health outputs.

In theory, all of this means ChatGPT Health could give more personalised answers compared to general ChatGPT, with greater privacy.

Read more:
Can you say no to your doctor using an AI scribe?

But are there still risks?

Yes. OpenAI openly states ChatGPT Health is not designed to replace medical care and is not intended for diagnosis or treatment.

It can still make mistakes. Even if ChatGPT Health has access to your health data, there is very little information about how accurate and safe the tool is, and how well it has summarised the sources it has used.

The tool has not been independently tested. It’s also unclear whether ChatGPT Health would be considered a medical device and regulated as one in Australia.

The tool’s responses may not reflect Australian clinical guidelines, our health systems and services, and may not meet the needs of our priority populations. These include First Nations people, those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people with disability and chronic conditions, and older adults.

We don’t know yet if ChatGPT Health will meet data privacy and security standards we typically expect for medical records in Australia.

Currently, many Australians’ medical records are incomplete due to patchy uptake of MyHealthRecord, meaning even if you upload your medical record, the AI may not have the full picture of your medical history.

For now, OpenAI says medical record and some app integrations are only available in the United States.

So, what’s the best way to use ChatGPT for health questions?

In our research, we have worked with community members to create short educational materials that help people think about the risks that come with relying on AI for health advice, and to consider other options.

Higher risk

Health questions that would usually require clinical expertise to answer carry more risk of serious consequences. This could include:

• finding out what symptoms mean
• asking for advice about treatment
• interpreting test results.

AI responses can often seem sensible – and increasingly personalised – but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct or safe. So, for these higher-risk questions, the best option is always to speak with a health professional.

Lower risk

Other health questions are less risky. These tend to be more general, such as:

• learning about a health condition or treatment option
• understanding medical terms
• brainstorming what questions to ask during a medical appointment.

Ideally, AI is just one of the information sources you use.

Where else can I get free advice?

In Australia we have a free 24/7 national phone service, where anyone can speak with a registered nurse about their symptoms: 1800 MEDICARE (1800 633 422).

Symptom Checker, operated by healthdirect, is another publicly funded, evidence-based tool that will help you understand your next steps and connect you with local services.

AI tools are here to stay

For now, we need clear, reliable, independent, and publicly available information about how well the current tools work and the limits of what they can do. This information must be kept up-to-date as the tools evolve.

Purpose-built AI health tools could transform how people gain knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their health. But these need to be designed with communities and clinicians, and prioritise accuracy, equity and transparency.

It is also essential to equip our diverse communities with the knowledge and skills to navigate this new technology safely.

Julie Ayre receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Kirsten McCaffery receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council

Adam Dunn 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. ChatGPT Health promises to personalise health information. It comes with many risks – https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-health-promises-to-personalise-health-information-it-comes-with-many-risks-273699

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/chatgpt-health-promises-to-personalise-health-information-it-comes-with-many-risks-273699/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

Until recently, Aotearoa New Zealand led global tobacco control innovation. Evidence-based policies, including sustained tobacco excise tax increases, saw large reductions in smoking rates, which will save thousands of lives.

Yet duty-free tobacco sales remain a curious anomaly and contradict efforts to reduce smoking prevalence.

At international airports and duty-free stores throughout the country, travellers can still buy cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco without paying the excise tax or GST applied at domestic retail outlets.

Cheap duty-free sales of tobacco products not only deprive the public purse of millions of dollars, they undermine efforts to become a smoke-free nation.

Excise tax works because it raises prices, and higher prices reduce smoking. Studies have consistently found every 10% increase in price reduces tobacco consumption by around 5%.

Numerous studies show that when tobacco prices rise, people smoke less and try to quit more often, and fewer young people take up smoking. Because people on lower incomes and young people are more sensitive to increasing prices, tobacco excise taxes can help reduce health inequities within these groups.

These benefits explain why successive governments increased tobacco excise by 10% annually from 2011 to 2020, on top of annual inflation adjustments.

But while this measure was associated with a sustained decline in smoking prevalence, duty-free outlets continue to offer tobacco at just a fraction of regular retail prices.

Raising revenue while reducing harm

In 2014, three years after it declared the Smokefree 2025 goal, the government recognised this inconsistency. It reduced the duty-free allowance from 200 cigarettes to 50 and applied similar reductions to other tobacco products.

Nonetheless, although duty-free sales dropped sharply the following year, they continue to represent millions of dollars in foregone tax revenue.

Our recent analysis of the tobacco returns data that tobacco companies supply to the Ministry of Health shows duty-free tobacco cost the government between NZ$60 million and $96 million in foregone excise tax and GST between 2015 and 2024.

Even using conservative assumptions that account for reduced consumption at higher prices, the lost revenue amounts to tens of millions of dollars.

The health system is under increasing pressure; allowing discounted tobacco sales effectively undermines government goals to reduce cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Importantly, it also removes funding from government coffers that could expand existing health care.

Even using our most conservative estimate of $60 million, the foregone revenue could have funded around 600 Keytruda treatments for early-stage breast cancer, which is currently unfunded. (Ironically, people self-funding cancer therapies pay GST on the drugs they require.)

Alternatively, $60 million could have funded around 2,000 additional hip or knee replacement surgeries, or provided a substantial boost to mental health and addiction services.

Towards a coherent tobacco policy

Ending duty-free sales of tobacco products would amount to a price increase, which we would logically expect to reduce sales, and hence decrease health harms, and costs to the health system over time.

While perfume or chocolate purchases may be a relatively harmless perk of travel that boost airport revenues, these arguments do not hold for a product that will kill two out of three long-term users, and which remains a leading cause of preventable death.

This policy incoherence means that while New Zealand has an explicit goal of reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco availability, and eliminating smoking-related inequities (particularly for Māori and Pacific peoples), it still allows sales of discounted tobacco.

New Zealand is a party to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the first global treaty to address the tobacco epidemic. This means New Zealand has an obligation to implement effective and wide-ranging tobacco control policies.

The World Health Organization has recommended parties to the framework do not allow duty-free tobacco sales (or at least apply taxes to them).

Remedying the current contradiction is simple. Ending duty-free tobacco sales offers a straightforward and low-cost solution that would consolidate the effects excise taxes have on tobacco consumption.

Applying excise and GST taxes to tobacco products currently sold at duty free stores would also generate revenue that could support a struggling health system.

Importantly, it would ensure government policies align with its international obligations, demonstrate the policy leadership that once defined Aotearoa New Zealand’s approach to tobacco control, and encourage other countries to take similar action.

Janet Hoek receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Marsden Fund, NZ Cancer Society and NZ Heart Foundation. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s smokefree expert advisory group and was a member of the Ministry of Health’s smokefree advisory group. She is a member of the HRC’s Public Health Research Committee and a Senior Editor at Tobacco Control (honorarium paid). She serves (or has served) on several other government, NGO and community advisory groups. She has received travel and accommodation support from NGOs to present at conferences.

J. Robert Branston receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco
Use (www.bloomberg.org), and from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the UK. He also owns 10 shares in Imperial Brands for research purposes. The shares were a gift from a public health campaigner and are not held for financial gain or benefit. All dividends received are donated to health-related charities and proceeds from any future share sale or takeover will
be similarly donated.

Philip Gendall 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. Ending duty-free tobacco sales would be good for health – and health budgets – https://theconversation.com/ending-duty-free-tobacco-sales-would-be-good-for-health-and-health-budgets-273340

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/ending-duty-free-tobacco-sales-would-be-good-for-health-and-health-budgets-273340/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Employment and Industry, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

For teens, a holiday or weekend job is a good way to earn pocket money and learn a new range of skills.

But given the historical and ongoing exploitation of child labour across the globe, strict laws are set out to protect children.

Australia follows the 1973 International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention on a minimum working age. Under this convention, the standard age for employing young people is 15 years old.

But people can start work before that, subject to additional legal protections. Even if young people are volunteers and undertaking unpaid work, there are similar restrictions on their activities to the limits in paid employment.

So if you have a young person in your life who’s thinking about getting a job, it’s worth knowing what the laws and rules are.

What are the rules for kids under 15?

Every state in Australia has specific requirements for employing workers who are under 15 years old. These specifications differ from state to state, but most principles are broadly similar.

For employers, they need to hold a child employment licence to employ children under 15.

There are set limits on how many hours young people can work, depending on their age. Generally, they can do up to ten hours each week.

There are also restrictions on doing heavy work. Young workers under 15 years can only undertake light duties. In Victoria, for example, a child cannot work on a building site or on a fishing boat.

There are also rules for when children can work. Working during school hours is generally not allowed because state laws require children to attend school. Legislation about children in the workplace is built around ensuring they access education.

Some jurisdictions have special provisions around times of day children under 15 can work.

In Western Australia, young workers aged 10–12 cannot start work earlier than 6.00am or finish their work after 7.00pm. Children aged 13–14 cannot start before 6.00am but can finish work at 10.00pm.

In Tasmania, children between the ages of 11 and 14 aren’t allowed to work between 9.00pm and 5.00am of the following day, unless it’s for charity or school.

There are similar laws in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

What sorts of jobs can kids under 15 do?

While laws are in place to protect children from exploitation, there are many opportunities for children to be part of the workforce, starting as young as ten or 11 years in the delivery services industry or as child models in the advertising industry.

Children from ages 10–12 can work in a limited capacity delivering newspapers, pamphlets or advertising material.

Children aged 13–14 can extend this work to a variety of roles in the retail and hospitality sectors, including in cafes and restaurants, the fast food industry and shops.

While they can be employed in the hospitality sector, young workers under 18 generally can’t serve alcohol or sell cigarettes.

In some sectors, there are fewer requirements for employing children of any age.

Working in a family business, for a charity or not-for-profit organisation or in the entertainment industry is not subject to many restrictions, apart from the need to attend school.

Parental supervision is needed under some circumstances. For example, photographic work with children up to three years old needs a parent involved, as does letterbox delivery, door-to-door sales and charity work by kids under 12.

In some instances the requirement to undertake work outside school hours can be waived, such as when a child is home schooled.

What if a child is 15 or older?

Children older than 15 years are still subject to different conditions than 18-year-old or adult workers. Child workers up to the age of 18 years still require their parent’s consent or hold a right to work “special circumstances certificate” to be employed.

Workers under 18 years are exempt from holding a Working with Children Check, required when working in close contact with children such as in child care centres and schools, or involved in sports coaching.

The adult hourly wage rate starts at 21 years. Younger workers are paid a percentage of the adult rate, so the wages of young people are differentiated by age.

Read more:
There’s a renewed push to scrap junior rates of pay for young adults. Do we need to rethink what’s fair?

The exceptions to the rules

The entertainment and advertising industries are high profile and highly sought after sectors employing children. But they’re not subject to many of the rules above.

Laws allow children in the entertainment industry to “take the stage” at any age, provided their schooling is not interrupted. Children can work as an actor, musician, entertainer or a model in advertising under these conditions, but all need parental consent.

The entertainment industry has requirements for employers to be licensed to employ children and adult employees may need to undergo a Working with Children Check if they are working alongside those under 18 years in a role such as a coach or an actor.

Parents of child workers have the right to be informed about all aspects of their child’s job, including extensive briefings about the things their child will see, hear and do in their role.

The child cannot be exposed to anything that is inappropriate for their age, maturity and level of development, or be put in situations to cause them distress or embarrassment.

But even when entirely lawful, things can get messy. Signing kids up to record deals or modelling contracts can be hard for parents to navigate and many may not understand the potential long-term ramifications. It may be helpful to consult a lawyer when looking at legal paperwork like this.

Overall, labour laws emphasise the importance of education, adequate rest and access to leisure time. Any job a child can get must adhere to these standards.

Kerry Brown has received funding to undertake research from local and state governments, and from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Does your child want a part-time job? Here’s what the law says about kids at work – https://theconversation.com/does-your-child-want-a-part-time-job-heres-what-the-law-says-about-kids-at-work-271528

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/does-your-child-want-a-part-time-job-heres-what-the-law-says-about-kids-at-work-271528/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Shanahan, Associate Professor of Political Engagement, University of Surrey

Federal immigration agents in the city of Minneapolis are accused of having wrestled a 37-year-old intensive care nurse called Alex Pretti to the ground and then shooting him dead. The killing took place just over a mile from where another American citizen, Renee Good, was allegedly fatally shot by federal agents weeks earlier.

The latest incident prompted angry protests from people in Minneapolis who want the immigration enforcement operation in their city to end. We spoke to Mark Shanahan, an associate professor of political engagement at the University of Surrey, to address several key issues.

Why has sending in federal immigration agents caused such trouble in Minnesota?

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, the national guard has been deployed to several US cities to quell what have generally been Donald Trump-inflated crises, with illegal migration among the most prominent. However, in December, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump did not have authority for such deployments.

So, since then we have seen federal agents with US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement taking the battle largely to minorities in cities with Democratic party leadership as part of the president’s violent attack on illegal immigration, a situation he has described as “the greatest invasion in history”.

Minneapolis is a Democrat-run city in a Democrat-led state. The governor is Tim Walz who ran for vice-president on the Kamala Harris ticket against Trump in the 2024 election. Walz has faced allegations, which he denies, of overlooking alleged widespread fraud in the financing of public safety net programmes, supposedly involving segments of the Somali-American community.

While most of these allegations have been refuted, they gave Trump reason to send in federal agents. This has ramped up tensions between state officials and the administration, causing brutal and unnecessary deaths in the community and pitting ordinary Minnesotans against federal government officials.

How does the situation in Minnesota reflect the second amendment right to bear arms?

It’s a reversal of virtually all of the second amendment debates that have been seen in recent years. The second amendment was introduced to the US constitution in 1791 through the Bill of Rights due to a deep mistrust of centralised military power and a desire to ensure that the newly formed federal government could not disarm the populace.

The founding fathers envisaged a “natural right of resistance and self-preservation”. Trump’s actions in sending in armed federal agents to conduct enforcement operations in various states appear to fulfil the founding fathers’ concerns.

The agents are trampling all over not only citizens’ second amendment right to bear arms (officials seemingly connected Pretti’s killing to him carrying a weapon) but also their first amendment right to freedom of assembly.

Read more:
Shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis has put America’s gun lobby at odds with the White House

How have the fatal shootings affected Trump’s popularity?

Trump’s popularity is on the decline. His failure to deliver on the economic promises outlined in his election campaign, scatter-gun approach to international relations and the widening gulf between rhetoric and achievement have all damaged his standing in the polls.

In a CNN poll published on January 16, almost six in ten respondents described Trump’s first year back in office as a failure with the president focused on the wrong priorities.

And what support he does have is ebbing rapidly as federal immigration agents appear out of control, targeting many more documented citizens than illegal migrants, spreading fear and operating as if they are above the law.

With what looks like high levels of gaslighting coming from Homeland Security officials, voters are turning against the increasing autocracy of this administration, believing in the evidence widespread across the media rather than highly contentious statements from Trump’s lieutenants.

Is it unusual for former presidents to speak out the way Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have?

It certainly is. There is a longstanding tradition in the US of, and implicit agreement among, former presidents to avoid public criticism of the incumbent. Such reticence to speak is generally a sign of respect for the office and an acknowledgement of the unique and difficult challenges of the presidency.

But Trump 2.0 is no normal presidency. The 47th president’s style is both combative and retributive, and there seems to be an increasing feeling of it being out of step with the desires and best interest of the country he leads.

Trump’s march to autocracy creates crises where he regards himself as the hero the country needs to overcome its ills. His predecessors take a different view.

Whether it’s Obama calling out the assault on core American values or Clinton’s condemnation of the “horrible scenes” in Minneapolis as “unacceptable” and avoidable, Democrat past presidents have not held back. Notably, the only living previous Republican president, George W. Bush, has so far kept his own counsel.

What can be done to prevent further violence?

Most simply, Trump could end the deployment of federal immigration agents to Minneapolis and refrain from similar actions in the future. He is clearly looking for an off-ramp and sending his “border czar”, Tom Homan, to Minneapolis to direct operations could be the first step to de-escalation. But Trump abhors being called out as wrong and, at least beyond Minneapolis, is far more likely to double down on the immigration enforcement activities.

Realistically, the most likely de-escalator is Congress showing some teeth and refusing to fund further federal immigration enforcement activity. Democrats could force another government shutdown over the issue, and need just a handful of Republicans to flip in order to refuse to sanction a 2026 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.

At a public level, the greater the scrutiny of immigration enforcement agencies, the closer the fact-checking of official statements and the more cohesive the opposition to Trump’s deportation policy, the greater the chance of effectively opposing it.

It is midterm year – and the greater the public pressure, the more likely Republican legislators are to cleave away from the Trump line. While he currently controls the levers of power, that control remains fragile. Even Trump may soon realise that overt, violent, coercive autocracy is not a vote winner.

Mark Shanahan has a new edited collection, Trump Unbound, coming out in October 2026 to be published by Palgrave Macmillan.

– ref. Why the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis is so significant – expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/why-the-shooting-of-alex-pretti-in-minneapolis-is-so-significant-expert-qanda-274318

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/why-the-shooting-of-alex-pretti-in-minneapolis-is-so-significant-expert-qanda-274318/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Another US citizen has allegedly been killed by immigration agents in Minnesota, raising tensions between state and federal governments. The actions of the federal agencies involved has drawn fierce criticism not only from former Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, but also America’s powerful pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

If you were to think it unusual that the people named in the previous sentence appear to be on the same side over this issue, you’d be right. But these aren’t usual times in America.

Video footage taken at the scene reportedly shows agents of the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – working with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) in Minnesota to detain people they suspect of being illegal migrants – tackling 37-year-old nurse, Alex Pretti.

The footage reportedly shows they wrestled him to the ground, beat him and apparently removed a handgun from a holster he was wearing, before firing ten shots at him.

Since his killing a lot of attention has focused on his gun. Carrying a handgun, whether openly or holstered, is legal in Minnesota, and Pretti had a license for his gun. So he was perfectly within his rights to be carrying it. And there is nothing to suggest from the footage that he attempted to draw it or use it while being tackled by the ICE agents.

Of course, in the United States, the right to keep and bear arms – the second amendment – is a pretty big deal to a lot of people, especially conservatives. So when various figures in the Trump regime suggested that CBP agents had been justified in shooting Pretti because he was carrying a holstered weapon, they provoked outrage from gun rights activists. And, significantly, many of these people are usually on the same page as the White House about pretty much anything.

First there was FBI director Kash Patel, who told Fox News: “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.” Dead wrong, replied the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the group Gun Owners of America – you’re legally entitled to bring a gun to a protest.

Then a Trump-appointed district attorney waded in, arguing: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

This drew a rebuke from the NRA, one of the most prolific and important right-wing groups in America and a big donor to Trump’s campaigns, which replied that: “This sentiment … is dangerous and wrong. Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

The problem that the Trump regime has is that it appears from abundant video evidence that Pretti was not handling his gun irresponsibly. He wasn’t waving it around, he wasn’t threatening anyone, in fact he wasn’t even touching it. He didn’t approach the federal agents – they appeared to pile on him. And he was disarmed of his holstered weapon by one of them before he was killed.

Second amendment vs tyrannical government

The reason that this touches such a raw nerve, even with many people who usually support Trump’s agenda, is that this cuts to the core of what the second amendment is about. In the eyes of the right, the amendment’s whole legitimacy rests on the idea that it allows the populace to arm in order to protect itself against a tyrannical government.

This means that Pretti was doing exactly what second amendment advocates say they need guns for. And while some gun rights advocates may have been willing to keep quiet while federal agents were trampling on the rights of migrants and brown-skinned citizens, the murder of Pretti is a bridge too far.

That’s not to say that the gun lobby is turning on the Trump administration – at least, not yet. But it is notable that ICE’s outrages (and those of the related Customs and Border Protection Agency) are becoming so hard to ignore that they’re increasingly drawing opposition not just from the left but also from traditionally right-wing groups.

The NRA is not about to flip and start fundraising for the next Democratic party presidential candidate. But its willingness to call out the regime is unusual to say the least. And it increases pressure on Trump to change course and damages the credibility of key people in the regime among conservatives.

The whole sequence of events also reveals something more concerning – the fact that more and more people in America on both left and right are carrying weapons. The idea of arming for self-defense has been quietly gaining ground in left-wing circles for around a decade.

Gun clubs have sprung up to serve LGBTQ+ people, black people, white liberals – anyone who fears they might one day be a target of violence from the Trump-ified federal authorities or right-wing militia. Nearly one-third of self-identified liberals now live in a gun-owning household.

And while it’s hard to find fault with their fears, this is another reason why America’s knife-edge politics is so terrifying. What happens when things fall apart in a country in which hatred and fear have driven so many people to arm themselves?

Let’s hope that Alex Pretti’s death serves as a reminder of the importance of stepping back from the brink rather than pushing the country closer to it.

A version of this article also appears on the author’s Substack series, America Explained.

Andrew Gawthorpe is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre, a London-based think tank.

– ref. Shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis has put America’s gun lobby at odds with the White House – https://theconversation.com/shooting-of-alex-pretti-in-minneapolis-has-put-americas-gun-lobby-at-odds-with-the-white-house-274343

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/27/shooting-of-alex-pretti-in-minneapolis-has-put-americas-gun-lobby-at-odds-with-the-white-house-274343/