MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joëlle Rollo-Koster, Professor of Medieval History, University of Rhode Island

Alarm over the war of words between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV has escalated with remarkable speed, from The New York Times to the Daily Beast and local television.

The pope has repeatedly called for peace in the Middle East since the start of the Iran war, insisting that “God does not bless any conflict” and warning against the “delusion of omnipotence.”

On April 12, in a lengthy social media post, Trump derided Leo as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” telling him to “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” His Truth Social account posted, then deleted, a Christ-like image of Trump appearing to heal a man.

At stake in this public feud is an old question: Can a religious leader challenge political power, especially a ruler of one of the most powerful countries in the world?

As a medieval historian and lead editor of “The Cambridge History of the Papacy,” I cannot help but see a familiar pattern.

For many people, Trump’s rant against the pope was shocking. But conflicts between popes and rulers are not an aberration; they’re a durable feature of Western history. Whenever political leaders cloak power in sacred language, or religious leaders publicly denounce political violence, they reenact debates that stretch back more than a millennium. These struggles are not symbolic: They concern who holds ultimate authority over people, souls – and in the end, history itself.

Two powers, intertwined

From its earliest centuries, Christianity was bound up with politics. Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the religion in 313. He later presided over the Council of Nicaea, an important theological assembly, blurring the line between political rule and spiritual authority.

In the fifth century, Pope Gelasius I articulated a rival vision: that the world was governed by two powers, priestly and royal. Ultimately, he argued, spiritual authority outweighed political power, because it promised eternal salvation. Gelasius’ theory did not resolve the tension between the two, but it established a lasting framework for Christian political thought.

The relationship between these two powers shifted decisively in the year 800, when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, a Frankish king, emperor on Christmas Day. This act was not merely ceremonial. It implied that imperial authority in the West came from the church and that political legitimacy required papal sanction.

The coronation followed years of political instability in Rome and the papacy’s increasing reliance on the Franks for military protection. After Leo was elected pope in 795, opponents attacked him, and he found shelter at the court of Charlemagne. The king returned to Rome with Leo and asserted his legitimacy. In turn, Leo crowned Charlemagne. Doing so asserted his own role as a maker of emperors, while Charlemagne gained a sacred aura.

This moment reshaped medieval political theology. It encouraged rulers to see themselves as guardians of both political order and religious orthodoxy, while popes moved from spiritual counselors to active participants in secular governance. The result was a paradox: Kings invoked God to sanctify conquest, as Charlemagne did in his brutal wars against the Saxons. Meanwhile, churchmen claimed the authority to restrain violence, encouraged just wars and threatened violent behaviors with spiritual sanctions.

Battle over bishops

By the 11th century, however, the papacy increasingly sought to free itself from secular dominance. In particular, popes wanted to select the church’s bishops rather than allowing nobility or a king to do so.

That struggle exploded into the Investiture Controversy, one of the most consequential conflicts of the Middle Ages, and lay crucial groundwork for the Magna Carta, the first document to hold royalty subject to the law. Both events addressed the same fundamental question: Who has the right to grant authority, and what limits exist on political power?

At stake was not merely church administration but sovereignty itself. Bishops were major landholders and political figures; controlling their selection meant controlling wealth, loyalty and governance.

In the push to appoint bishops, popes were insisting that spiritual authority came from the church alone, challenging the idea that kings ruled by unchecked power. It was a decisive attempt to separate spiritual legitimacy from royal control and to place moral constraints on rulers who claimed divine authority.

The Investiture Controversy dragged on for several decades. Finally, in 1122, Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry V signed the Concordat of Worms. The agreement granted the pope the right to name bishops and to install their spiritual authority. The emperor, meanwhile, would “invest” them with their “temporalities”: that is, the worldly powers attached to their office, such as land, revenue, jurisdiction and coercion.

Reining in the king

A century later, the Magna Carta pursued a parallel objective.

Its immediate background lay in the conflict over the new archbishop of Canterbury, whom Pope Innocent III had appointed in 1207. King John opposed his choice, prompting Innocent to excommunicate the king and place England under interdict, meaning the English could not participate in church sacraments.

To appease tensions, John surrendered England to the pope in 1213, turning the kingdom into a papal fief. In return, he received Innocent’s approval for a war against France.

But the arrangement deeply angered English barons, who now found themselves subject not only to their king but also to papal authority. After England’s decisive defeat, John was forced to confront rebellious barons at home.

The result was the Magna Carta, the “Great Charter.” Forced on the king by armed resistance, the document asserted that the king himself was subject to law. It limited royal authority over taxation, justice and punishment, and it famously declared that no free person could be imprisoned or deprived of rights without lawful judgment.

John appealed to the pope, however, who annulled the charter shortly after its issue. Despite this setback, the Magna Carta survived: John’s son Henry III reissued it several times, with its definitive version implemented in 1225.

Taking the long view

Seen in this long perspective, the Trump–Leo confrontation appears less surprising. When a president invokes sacred language or imagery to justify violence, and a pope replies by denying divine sanction, they are reenacting a struggle as old as medieval Christendom: who may speak in God’s name, and who may set limits on power.

The medieval world did not resolve this tension, but it learned to live with it by fracturing authority: first between church and crown, later between rulers and law. What is unsettling today is how easily modern leaders still reach for religious language to evade restraint, and how fragile the institutions meant to check them can appear.

– ref. Trump’s clash with the pope reenacts a 1,000-year-old question: What happens when sacred and secular power collide? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-clash-with-the-pope-reenacts-a-1-000-year-old-question-what-happens-when-sacred-and-secular-power-collide-280548

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/trumps-clash-with-the-pope-reenacts-a-1-000-year-old-question-what-happens-when-sacred-and-secular-power-collide-280548/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

For many of us, flu can mean a nasty few weeks of illness. But for the very young and old, and those with health complications, it can be extremely serious, leading to around 3,500 deaths in Australia each year.

You likely know vaccination is the best protection against the flu (influenza), and may have even read our recent article about the best time to get vaccinated.

So, what are your options? And are you eligible for a free flu shot?

Here are the answers to some common questions I’ve been getting: about which strains this year’s vaccine protects against, whether the brand matters, if there are egg-free options, and what to do if you’re scared of needles.

Will the vaccine protect against the ‘super K’ strain?

Each year, influenza strains accumulate small mutations that are different enough from each other that the immune system doesn’t recognise them well. This is why vaccine components need to change each year, to anticipate what will circulate the following season.

One strain of influenza, called subclade K – also known as “Super K” – was responsible for many influenza infections in late 2025, both in the southern hemisphere, and during the usual northern hemisphere winter season.

In 2026, the southern hemisphere vaccine contains two new components, with one closely related to subclade K. This should lead to better protection against subclade K infections.

Does the brand make a difference? And will I have a choice?

Vaccines can vary in the way they are manufactured – either in eggs (Vaxigrip, Fluzone, Influvac) or cells (Flucelvax). Studies suggest cell-based vaccines provide at least as much protection, and possibly slightly more, than egg-based vaccines.

But the most important point is that any influenza vaccine provides protection, and the difference between vaccine types is relatively small.

Certain formulations are designed to elicit a stronger immune response. These are designed for older people, whose immune systems tend to produce a weaker response. These “enhanced” vaccines include those with an adjuvant, a substance that stimulates the immune system to respond (Fluad), and those with higher doses of influenza vaccine strains (Fluzone High-Dose).

There is also a new nasal vaccine for children (Flumist).

If you want a specific type of vaccine, call ahead to your vaccine provider to discuss the options available.

Where can I get the flu vaccine?

The easiest way to find a vaccine provider is by searching on the government’s HealthDirect website under “Influenza (flu) vaccine” and your location.

In general, influenza vaccines are available at GP clinics, pharmacies, community health services and Aboriginal Health Services. Your school, university or workplace may also have a program.

There are special arrangements for aged care facilities and other group accommodation settings. Immunisation services are also available for staff and patients in public hospitals.

Who is it free for? Does it depend where you live?

Unfortunately this is somewhat complicated, as there are both national and state/territory programs.

Under the National Immunisation Program, influenza vaccines are free for high risk groups:

• anyone over 65 years of age
• all children aged between six months and four years (inclusive)
• people with certain chronic illnesses
• those who are pregnant
• all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (over six months of age).

Free state and territory programs may cover additional groups or different vaccines:

• Queensland and Western Australia provide influenza vaccines for anyone over the age of six months who is not covered by the national program
• some states provide the nasal vaccine (FluMist) for children as an alternative to the injectable vaccine: 2–4 years in New South Wales and South Australia; 2–5 years in Queensland; and 2–11 years in WA
• SA has a program for people experiencing homelessness.

Most health-care services and aged care services also provide free influenza vaccines for their workers. Some other employers choose to arrange similar workplace programs.

For those not covered by free state or national government programs, influenza vaccines are widely available at clinics and pharmacies. Costs range from around A$20 (for standard egg-based vaccines) up to $50–70 (for nasal vaccines in children).

Some private health insurance policies also include free flu shots, so check with your provider.

Is there an egg-free option? And why are eggs involved?

Since the 1940s, influenza vaccines have been manufactured using chicken eggs. Flu strains grow efficiently in them, and are then inactivated, purified and processed.

The amount of residual egg protein in vaccines after processing is now very small (less than one microgram). Even people with an egg allergy can generally receive egg-based vaccines safely. But if you have an allergy, discuss this with your vaccine provider.

For people who want an egg-free option, a cell-based vaccine, Flucelvax, is manufactured in animal cells (MDCK cells, derived from canine kidneys), before purification and processing.

Other vaccines use insect cells but are not yet available in Australia. There aren’t any products that don’t involve eggs or animal cells, although mRNA vaccines (similar to COVID-19 vaccines) are being developed.

What if I’m scared of needles?

In Australia, the nasal vaccine FluMist is only registered for use in children. But this may eventually change, as in some other countries it’s also available for adults under 50.

If you’re extremely scared of needles, there are evidence-based options to help make immunisation less distressing. These include psychological techniques (such as breathing exercises), distraction devices (that cool and vibrate the skin), or local anaesthetic or sedation,

So if you’re concerned, speak to your GP or pharmacist to make sure you don’t miss out on the opportunity to protect yourself against influenza.

– ref. Can I get a free flu shot? And will it cover ‘super K’? Your influenza vaccine questions answered – https://theconversation.com/can-i-get-a-free-flu-shot-and-will-it-cover-super-k-your-influenza-vaccine-questions-answered-279222

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/can-i-get-a-free-flu-shot-and-will-it-cover-super-k-your-influenza-vaccine-questions-answered-279222/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Rutter, Senior Adjunct Lecturer, Waterways Centre, University of Canterbury

The latest official stocktake of the state of New Zealand’s freshwater carries many of the headline messages we have come to expect.

Pressures such as intensive land use and climate change are continuing to degrade our lakes, streams and rivers, with pathogen contamination making many monitored sites unsafe for swimming.

The country’s vulnerable freshwater habitats are struggling with stresses that range from nutrients and invasive species to warming water temperatures.

And once again, the Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ’s new report, Our Freshwater 2026: Tō Tātou Wai Māori, underscores just how central freshwater systems are to our wellbeing. They support our health, help produce our food and energy, and sustain ecosystems.

What sets this latest report apart from others before it, however, is its focus on a part of the water cycle that is largely out of sight – but nonetheless crucial.

A hidden system with a long memory

Groundwater is what fills the pores and fractures of sediments and rocks beneath our feet, sometimes just a few metres down, and in other places hundreds of metres below ground.

It is core source of water for agriculture and provides drinking water to nearly half the population. During dry periods, it maintains the flow of rivers by slowly releasing water stored in aquifers.

Groundwater can also act as both a sink and a pathway for contamination. Once nutrients and other pollutants enter groundwater systems, they can linger within them for years, and often decades, before reemerging.

Today, groundwater sampling is showing the legacy of generations of human influence on New Zealand’s landscapes.

The report indicates that levels of nitrate – a form of nitrogen typically stemming from fertiliser use and livestock waste – have been increasing at 39% of monitored groundwater sites around the country, while declining at just 26% of sites.

Around 43% of monitored sites had nitrate levels above natural reference ranges – the levels expected without human influence – further pointing to the impact of activities such as farming.

Particularly where groundwater is shallow or poorly protected, contamination from land use has been affecting drinking water supplies.

Between 2019 and 2024, for instance, 45% of monitored groundwater sites recorded levels of the harmful bacteria E. coli above safe drinking water limits at least once – and 12% exceeded thresholds for nitrate.

Lag-times and blind spots

As the report acknowledges, groundwater doesn’t move in simple or predictable ways.

We often hear freshwater scientists speak about “lag-times”. This is effectively the time taken from a contaminant leaving a farmer’s paddock and later appearing in a drinking water supply.

In reality, groundwater transport processes remain poorly understood. These can vary across the country – and even within individual catchments – depending on factors such as soil, geology, depth and proximity to rivers.

In some cases – particularly where water is able to move quickly through soils during heavy rainfall – contamination linked to human activity can show up in groundwater within days to a few years.

In Canterbury, for instance, shifts in nitrate concentrations have emerged in spring-fed streams and shallow wells within five years of land use intensifying nearby.

But in other parts of the system, contaminants can take much longer to turn up and flush out. Understanding these differences is important, because we risk misreading long-term trends and missing where – and when – problems are actually occurring.

At the same time, much of what is happening below the surface remains difficult for scientists to track. Standard monitoring approaches used today can miss short-lived spikes after storms, which can obscure how much contamination is present, or whether it is driven by rainfall or ongoing land use.

New low-cost nitrate-tracking tools are helping to untangle this picture, revealing just how much contamination levels in New Zealand’s groundwater can fluctuate over time.

In some cases, during wetter periods when groundwater systems naturally recharge, nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells have been observed to surge from minimal levels to those well above safe drinking water limits.

By capturing this variability through more targeted, high-resolution monitoring, we can more clearly see how contaminants move through groundwater systems. These tools also make standard spot samples collected by regional councils far more useful, helping distinguish short-term surges from longer-term pressures.

More broadly, there are other challenges to confront. Freshwater data is often fragmented across different organisations and important knowledge – including mātauranga Māori – remains often underused in resource management.

Ultimately, all these gaps limit our ability to build a clear, complete picture of what is happening within our waterways, both below and above the surface.

From resource to risk?

Just as importantly, the report notes that pollution from land use isn’t the only pressure now facing groundwater. In some places, particularly low-lying coastal areas, groundwater itself is becoming a hazard.

As sea levels rise, groundwater levels are likely to be pushed higher, both near the coast and further inland. This raises the risk of flooding, liquefaction and damage to infrastructure.

Rising sea levels and other climate change impacts can also bring saltwater into coastal aquifers, making groundwater less suitable to use, while affecting underground assets such as pipes.

Such vulnerabilities underscore the report’s central theme: that water availability and water quality pressures are shifting, driven by climate change, land use and coastal processes.

Meeting that challenge will require a clearer understanding of the whole system – closing critical knowledge gaps and making better use of the tools and data already available.

– ref. Out of sight, but not out of trouble: groundwater contamination in NZ reveals a legacy of human pressure – https://theconversation.com/out-of-sight-but-not-out-of-trouble-groundwater-contamination-in-nz-reveals-a-legacy-of-human-pressure-280347

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/out-of-sight-but-not-out-of-trouble-groundwater-contamination-in-nz-reveals-a-legacy-of-human-pressure-280347/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ashlynne McGhee, Head of Editorial Innovation, The Conversation

We’d all like deeply considered policy and informed debate to be at the heart of politics, but unfortunately controversies and scandals tend to steal the show.

For most parties, scandals are disastrous: they lose seats, ministers and elections — but not One Nation.

It’s weathered defections and punch-ups (including a memorable smearing of blood on a Senate door), jail and chaos, and 30 years on it’s surging.

This is a party that doesn’t just survive the chaos, but cultivates it and capitalises on it.

Jordan McSwiney researches far-right parties and movements. In episode three of our new series The Making of One Nation, he says the more controversy, the better for One Nation.

Scandals tend to actually work in the party’s favour.

It’s incomparable. I can’t really think of another political party that has such a sort of history of dysfunction and such high profile blowups.

And he says cultivating scandal is a very intentional strategy.

These kinds of things are basically an attempt to capture media attention, stay in the headlines and shift the focus of the national conversation to One Nation’s preferred issues.

But he warns that the Senator who courts the chaos and controversy, could also be its downfall.

While Pauline Hanson is the selling point of One Nation, I think she also is its greatest risk and its Achilles heel in many ways.

Listen to the interview with Jordan McSwiney on The Making of One Nation podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This episode was written by Ashlynne McGhee and produced and edited by Isabella Podwinski. Sound design by Michelle Macklem.

– ref. Inside One Nation’s strategy of scandal, chaos and controversy – https://theconversation.com/inside-one-nations-strategy-of-scandal-chaos-and-controversy-280274

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/inside-one-nations-strategy-of-scandal-chaos-and-controversy-280274/