Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Pate, Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of Technology Sydney

It happens in slow motion. Your six-year-old daughter is sprinting across the playground at school drop-off time when her toe catches on uneven ground. She goes down hard.

The playground goes silent. She freezes and looks up, straight at you.
In that split second she scans your face for data. Should she be terrified?

I’ve been there. I’d like to tell you that my pain scientist brain kicks in immediately. But honestly it’s usually my panicked parent brain that gets there first. My stomach drops and my instinct is to gasp, or rush in to fix it.

This reaction is typical because we want to protect our kids. However, these moments are opportunities to teach children that their bodies are adaptable. Our reactions teach them whether pain is a disaster to be feared, or a feeling that’s safe to feel.

Adults as the volume knob

Children look to adults and even borrow our nervous system to gauge danger. They read our tone and posture as clues to determine how worried they should feel.

Research into everyday pain shows incidents such as bumps, cuts and scrapes happen frequently. For active toddlers in daycare, they occur about once every three hours. In these moments, adults often respond to the child’s distress, such as crying, rather than the actual severity of the injury.

When we panic, we turn the child’s pain volume knob up. When parents are highly distressed and protective about their child’s pain, it can make children more fearful. They may avoid activity or have more trouble with pain over time.

On the other hand, remaining calm helps children turn the volume down. We teach them that the alarm can be loud without the threat being catastrophic.

Two phrases that can backfire

It’s tempting to try to switch the alarm off immediately. However, two common phrases can shut down a child’s signal for help too quickly.

“You are OK”

It’s a common assumption that pain is only real when there is visible damage. Telling a child they’re fine when they’re clearly hurting can feel dishonest. It suggests their internal signals are wrong.

“Don’t cry”

Crying is a healthy signal for help. Asking a child to suppress it suggests the sensation is too scary to be acknowledged, cutting communication without resolving the underlying feeling of threat.

The internal scan versus the spoken message

A better approach is to separate what you do in your head from what you say out loud. Staying calm doesn’t mean ignoring genuine warning signs. The goal is calibrated concern, which is a middle ground between panic and dismissiveness.

Before saying anything, do a rapid risk scan. If they’re safe, responsive and breathing, you have confirmed it’s not an emergency. (Parents should still watch for red flags such as vomiting, confusion, unusual sleepiness, or pain that worsens rather than improves.)

If the injury is a minor scrape, you can shift to validation: “that looked sore”, “you got a fright”, or “I am here”. You are confirming verbally that they’re safe.

Age matters

Toddlers (2 to 5 years) rely on your facial expressions to know how to feel. Keep words simple and use physical comfort.

Primary school-aged kids (6 to 12 years) may want to be more involved in the solution, such as helping clean a scrape.

Teens can need a mix of validation and space. Ask what they need from you instead of doing everything for them.

From protection to movement

Once the tears settle, the recovery phase shapes the child’s relationship with movement. For years, the standard advice was RICER (rest, ice, compression, elevation, referral). Now, emerging evidence suggests that complete rest may delay healing.

Updated guidelines have shifted to PEACE & LOVE. PEACE applies immediately: protect, elevate, avoid anti-inflammatories, compress, educate. LOVE follows after a few days: load, optimism, vascularisation (promote blood flow via cardio), exercise.

The big shift here is optimism and load. This approach teaches children their bodies are designed to heal, and guides them back to gentle movement.

Three tiny experiments to try

1. Name it to tame it

Help your child turn a scary feeling into a piece of data. We found that even children without chronic pain have average pain ratings that fluctuate by up to 6 points out of 10 over six weeks. This volatility is typical. For tweens and older, you can ask, “What number is your pain right now on a scale from 0–10?”. This implicitly shows them that pain is changeable and usually drops quickly.

2. Calm then choose

Your calm nervous system helps soothe theirs. Try getting down to their level and take three slow breaths together. Depending on their age, you can then offer a choice to regain control: “Do you want to sit with me a bit longer or try walking to the slide?”

3. Retell the story later

Research confirms children can change their concept of pain through stories. Later that night, try parent-child reminiscing, which is where you retell the story of the fall together. Focus on personal strengths: “You were brave. You took deep breaths and then you got back up and played again”. This accurately reframes the memory from “I got hurt” to “I got hurt and I coped”.

Good enough is enough

If you overreacted to a recent mishap, be kind to yourself. Kids benefit from “good enough” patterns where their pain is taken seriously and their bodies are seen as capable.

So, let’s take a breath when bumps happen. Your child is looking at you. You have an opportunity to show them they’re safe and that their capable body knows how to heal.

Joshua Pate has received government funding for his research. He has received speaker fees for presentations on pain and physiotherapy. He receives book royalties.

– ref. Comfort them or let them tough it out? How parents shape a child’s pain response – https://theconversation.com/comfort-them-or-let-them-tough-it-out-how-parents-shape-a-childs-pain-response-269811

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/26/comfort-them-or-let-them-tough-it-out-how-parents-shape-a-childs-pain-response-269811/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

Australians are deeply divided over whether January 26 is an appropriate day to celebrate Australia Day – and we are no longer debating it as much as doubling down in entrenched camps.

Over the past five years, we have tracked attitudes on whether Australia Day should continue to be celebrated on January 26 through the Deakin Contemporary History Survey.

The most striking result from our late 2025 wave is not a shift in overall opinion, but a hardening of opposition to changing the date. While the balance between those who support and those who oppose change has remained stable, fewer Australians are sitting in the middle. This means more are expressing strong disagreement with changing the date of Australia Day.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on 26 January” was included in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, 2024 and late 2025.

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with this statement, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey is a nationally representative online survey widely regarded as one of Australia’s most robust social surveys.

What did the survey find?

Across all four surveys, the overall distribution of opinion has remained strikingly stable. In 2021, around 38% of Australians agreed Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26, while just over 60% disagreed. By late 2025, those figures are effectively unchanged, with 37% opposing the date and 62% supporting its retention.

However, while there was some softening in opposition in 2023 and 2024, the latest results suggest a return to the long-term average rather than a new shift in sentiment. In effect, the community is split 40/60 on the question of whether to change or retain.

What has changed is the strength of people’s feelings. Between 2021 and 2025, the proportion who strongly disagreed with changing the date increased markedly (from 30% to 38%), while the share who simply disagreed declined (from 31% to 26%). This is illustrated below.

In other words, many Australians who already supported keeping Australia Day on January 26 have moved from mild to strong opposition.

These changes are not because one age or gender group has shifted relative to others. Younger Australians remain more supportive of change than older Australians, and women remain more supportive than men.

What has changed is the strength of views within groups. Among 18-34 year olds, the proportion that strongly disagree with changing the date rose from 16% in 2021 to 23% in 2025.

A similar pattern is evident among older Australians: for those aged 55-74, strong disagreement increased from 40% to 47%, and among those aged 75 and over it rose from 47% to 53%. The same hardening is visible by gender, with strong disagreement among men rising from 36% in 2021 to 41% in 2025, and among women from 25% to 33%. The result is a broad hardening of attitudes across age and gender groups, rather than a change in who supports or opposes change.

What does this tell us?

These findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Although each survey wave uses large, weighted samples, some age and gender subgroups are smaller in the later waves, particularly in 2025.

Even so, the consistency of patterns across age and gender groups suggests this reflects a real shift in attitudes rather than chance fluctuation. On the supportive side, there is a modest shift from agree to strongly agree between 2021 and 2025, suggesting some consolidation of the pro-change view, though this change is modest and should be interpreted cautiously.

This hardening of conservative views is perhaps not surprising in the current context. The debate around Indigenous rights, including the failure of the Voice referendum in October 2023, shows that many Australians do not support official truth-telling and recognition processes.

This reluctance is also evident in our 2025 survey, where only 48% of respondents agreed it was appropriate to rename places and institutions to reflect Indigenous names and histories.

Following the referendum’s failure, most state and territory governments have largely abandoned the task of leading their constituencies through such processes. Studies have shown a rise in explicit racism expressed towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities during and since the referendum.

The rise in voting support for One Nation, which mirrors the success of populist politicians in the United States and United Kingdom, provides further evidence of the rise of a more hardline, right-wing populism, which often celebrates rather than questions the history of European imperialism.

It will need strong leadership from politicians and civic and religious leaders if we are to find ways to bridge this deepening divide.

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Andrew Singleton receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Opposition to moving Australia Day from January 26 is hardening: new research – https://theconversation.com/opposition-to-moving-australia-day-from-january-26-is-hardening-new-research-273795

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/26/opposition-to-moving-australia-day-from-january-26-is-hardening-new-research-273795/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The first Australian to qualify as an astronaut under Australia’s space program, Katherine Bennell-Pegg, is the 2026 Australian of the Year.

Bennell-Pegg, 41, who has yet to go to space, graduated from Basic Astronaut Training in 2024 as part of a class of six trained by the European Astronaut Centre in Germany. She was the first international candidate to do so. She had been picked for the program from more than 22,500 applicants.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese presented the Australian of the Year awards on Sunday night.

The Senior Australian of the Year is Professor Henry Brodaty, a pioneer in dementia treatment.

Young Australian of the Year is Nedd Brockmann, an ultra-marathon runner who has raised large sums to help the homeless.

The winner of the Local Hero section is Indigenous construction leader Frank Mitchell.

Bennell-Pegg, from South Australia, is an active promoter of Australia’s space program, and had the ambition of becoming an astronaut since she was a child. She regularly makes presentations to school children to inspire the next generation.
National Australia Day Council CEO Mark Fraser said she was “forging new frontiers for Australian space engineering, research and exploration.

“She leads by example, openly sharing her story to inspire the next generation and reminding us all of the power of a dream, and where determination can lead,” he said.

Bennell-Pegg was appointed director of space technology at the Australian Space Agency in 2022.

She has said “I have always dreamed of being an astronaut. When I was young, it was for the adventure, but after more than a decade working in space it’s now because I know the role it plays in tackling real-world problems and developing new knowledge that can benefit our society, environment, and science.”

The work of Brodaty, from New South Wales, is hailed as transformative in the diagnosis, care and prevention of dementia.

Momentum for his work came from the experience of his father, who was diagnosed in 1972 with Alzheimer’s disease, aged just 52. Back then, dementia was much more poorly understood than now.

In 2012, Brodaty co-founded the Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing and led internationally-significant research that improved understanding of the risk and prevention of dementia.

His Maintain Your Brain large trial showed cost-effective and targeted intervention could delay the onset of dementia and even prevent it.

“Henry, 78, is a leader who has reshaped dementia care from every angle as he navigates toward a future where dementia is better treated and prevented,” the council said.

Brockmann, now 27 and from NSW, became concerned about homelessness when, as a young electrician from Forbes, on his regular trips to TAFE saw how many people were sleeping rough on Sydney’s Eddy Avenue. He wanted to highlight the problem.

In 2022, he ran from Cottesloe beach in Perth to Bondi beach in Sydney, a journey of 3,952 kilometres which he completed in 46 days, setting a record. He raised more than $2.6 million from 37,000 contributions.

He then established Nedd’s Uncomfortable Challenge in 2024 and with his team has raised more than $8 million to help the homeless.

Mitchell, 43, from Western Australia, a Whadjuk-Yued Noongar man, is co-director of Wilco Electrical and co-founder/director of Kardan, Baldja and Bilyaa in the trades and construction industry.

He was influenced by early experiences of suicide and the loss of best friends.

“As a young single father, being offered an electrical apprenticeship felt like a profound opportunity. When he became a business owner in 2015, he pledged to create the same opportunities for Mob.”

“Starting with just eight staff and $1.5 million turnover, Frank and his partners have created over 70 Aboriginal upskilling positions in the electrical and construction industry, including 30 electrical apprenticeships and awarding over $11 million to Aboriginal subcontractors.

“Today, all four companies collectively employ over 200 full-time staff.

“His story embodies a vision that integrates cultural values with business leadership, strengthening his ties to community while reshaping the construction industry and creating lasting impact and social justice,” the council said in its statement.

Michelle Grattan 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. Astronaut Katherine Bennell-Pegg is 2026 Australian of the Year – https://theconversation.com/astronaut-katherine-bennell-pegg-is-2026-australian-of-the-year-274031

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/26/astronaut-katherine-bennell-pegg-is-2026-australian-of-the-year-274031/

ANALYSIS: By Jim Sanday

The recent announcement by Fiji’s Minister of Defence and Veterans Affairs that Fiji will consider contributing troops to a proposed international stabilisation force in Gaza imposes a responsibility on all of us to ask the hard questions before the decision is finalised by Cabinet.

At the outset, let’s all be clear on one thing — Gaza is not a routine peacekeeping environment. It is a highly contested battlespace where the legitimacy, consent, and enforceability of any international force remain uncertain.

Before Fiji government commits its soldiers to Gaza, the public deserves clear answers to a number of questions about the risks such a deployment would pose to those on the ground.

1: Is there genuine consent?
The most fundamental issue is the explicit rejection of the stabilisation force concept by Hamas, the dominant armed actor in Gaza.

Peacekeeping doctrine rests on consent, impartiality, and limited use of force. When one principal party openly rejects a mission, the cornerstone of consent collapses.

Without consent, Fijian soldiers in Gaza will not be seen as neutral interposers. They risk being perceived as a hostile occupying force, regardless of intent.

For troops on the ground, this dramatically elevates the risk.

Patrols, checkpoints, convoys, and static positions become potential targets — not because Fijian and other soldiers in the stabilisation force have failed, but because their presence itself is rejected.

Fiji’s peacekeepers have historically operated where communities accepted their role.

Gaza would represent a fundamentally different operational reality.

2: How clear and limited is the mandate?
Public reporting suggests the proposed force would support public order, protect humanitarian operations, assist in rebuilding Palestinian policing, and potentially contribute to the demilitarisation of armed groups.

Each of these tasks carries different — and escalating — levels of risk.

Protecting aid corridors is one thing. Being perceived as assisting disarmament or security restructuring against the wishes of the dominant armed faction in Gaza, is quite another.

Without a narrow, realistic mandate and clear rules of engagement, Fijian soldiers in Gaza risk mission creep — sliding from stabilisation into enforcement.

History shows that unclear mandates expose peacekeepers to rising hostility while leaving them politically constrained in how they respond.

The Fiji public deserves to know exactly what its soldiers would be authorised — and expected — to do if confronted by armed resistance.

3: Are troops being deployed into an urban conflict?
Gaza is one of the most complex operating environments in the world: dense urban terrain, extensive tunnel networks, armed groups embedded within civilian populations, and a society traumatised by prolonged conflict.

If Hamas and other factions do not accept the force, Fijian soldiers will find themselves operating in conditions closer to low-intensity urban warfare.

In such environments, visibility offers no protection. Uniforms do not deter improvised explosive devices, snipers, or politically motivated attacks.

The Fiji public are entitled to know whether its sons and daughters are being sent to stabilise a peace — or to operate amid an unresolved conflict where peace does not yet exist.

4: What does Fiji’s own experience tell us?
Fiji’s long service with UNIFIL in Lebanon offers an important point of comparison.

Fijian troops operated there with a clear UN mandate, within defined areas of responsibility, and — crucially — with working relationships with local communities that largely accepted their presence. Even then, the environment was never risk-free.

Gaza would be more volatile.

Unlike southern Lebanon, Gaza involves an armed group that openly rejects the very concept of an international force.

That distinction matters profoundly for force protection and operational viability.

5: What is the duty of care?
Ultimately, the central issue is the Fiji government’s duty of care to its soldiers and their families.

Courage is not the same as recklessness.

Pride in service must be matched by a rigorous assessment of the risks; whether the mission is lawful, achievable, adequately resourced and grounded in a good dose of political reality.

Before any deployment, the government owes the public clear answers:

• Is there genuine consent from all major parties on the ground?
• Is the mandate limited, realistic, and enforceable?
• Are the rules of engagement robust enough if consent collapses?
• And is Fiji being asked to stabilise a peace — or to substitute for one that does not yet exist?

Asking these questions is not an act of disloyalty. It is the standard that has protected Fijian soldiers and their reputation in past deployments.

Our peacekeeping legacy was built on disciplined judgment, not on repeating the narrative of The Charge of the Light Brigade — where unquestioned courage and noble intentions led to a fatal advance born of strategic ambiguity, and soldiers paid the price for a lack of clarity.

Fiji’s peacekeeping reputation was earned through disciplined judgment and respect for human life, not by placing soldiers in harm’s way where there is no peace to keep.

Jim Sanday was a commissioned military officer in the pre-coup Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and commanded Fijian peacekeeping battalions in Lebanon and Sinai. In 2025, he led the National Security and Defence Review (NSDR) and co-authored the National Security Strategy that was approved by Cabinet in June 2025. This article was first pubished by the Fiji Sun and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/25/gaza-peacekeeping-deployment-five-clear-questions-fiji-cannot-ignore/