When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.
In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).
Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?
How the GST carve-up is supposed to work
The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.
That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.
But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.
WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Holding onto the mineral wealth
During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.
But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.
The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.
Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.
Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.
No one worse off?
To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.
It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.
To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.
This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.
A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.
The system is not working as intended
The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.
But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.
This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.
Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.
An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.
Saul Eslake 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.
When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.
In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).
Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?
How the GST carve-up is supposed to work
The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.
That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.
But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.
WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Holding onto the mineral wealth
During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.
But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.
The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.
Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.
Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.
No one worse off?
To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.
It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.
To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.
This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.
A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.
The system is not working as intended
The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.
But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.
This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.
Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.
An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.
Saul Eslake 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.
Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.
But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.
As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.
Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.
What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.
New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.
How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?
Austerity and managerialism
In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.
Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.
In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.
We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.
Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.
But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.
Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964. Getty Images
Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.
In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.
In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.
The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.
This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.
What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.
What are budgets for?
Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.
Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.
Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.
For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.
But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.
From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.
To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.
Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?
Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.
Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.
But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.
As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.
Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.
What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.
New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.
How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?
Austerity and managerialism
In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.
Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.
In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.
We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.
Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.
But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.
Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964. Getty Images
Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.
In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.
In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.
The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.
This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.
What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.
What are budgets for?
Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.
Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.
Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.
For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.
But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.
From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.
To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.
Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?
Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney
Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if they’re eligible for vaccination.
Invasive meningococcal disease is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. Invasive means the infection spreads rapidly through the blood and into your organs.
Early emergency medical care is important for survival and to reduce the chance of long-term complications. Even in those who survive, up to 30% suffer permanent cognitive, physical or psychological disabilities.
Thankfully, vaccines are available to protect against it.
The bacteria does not easily pass from person to person by breathing the same air or sharing drinks or food – and the bacteria do not survive well outside the human body.
It is spread through close and prolonged contact of oral and respiratory secretions, such as saliva, from others who live in your household or through deep, intimate kissing.
There is no way to know if you carry the bacteria, as carriers don’t have symptoms.
Who is most at risk?
Meningococcal disease can affect anyone.
But infants under one, adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 years, and people without a spleen or who are immunosuppressed are at a higher risk of developing invasive disease.
Meningococcal disease notifications by age and sex
Although sensitive to common antibiotics such as penicillin, the meningococcal bacteria can cause severe infection and death in a matter of hours. The difficulty in picking up meningococcal disease early is that, early on, it can mimic common viral illnesses that people would recover from without any treatment.
Most people experience a sudden onset of fever, difficulty looking at light and/or a rash. The rash is non-blanching, meaning it doesn’t fade when you apply pressure to it. But early in the illness, it can start out as a blanching rash that fades with pressure.
Young infants may also become irritable, have difficulty waking up, or refuse to feed.
The bacteria usually causes a meningitis – inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord – or a bloodstream infection, called septicemia or sepsis. But sometimes it can cause an infection of the bone, lungs (pneumonia) or eyes (conjunctivitis).
Protection against different strains
There are 13 types of meningococcal bacteria that cause invasive disease, but types A, B, C, W and Y cause the most illness.
The rapid disease progression occurs because the bacteria has a sugar capsule which allows it to evade the immune system.
But each of the 13 types has its own unique capsule. So immunity to one strain does not offer immunity to other strains.
Currently, two types of vaccines are available: a vaccine that protects against meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY); and another vaccine that protects against meningococcal B.
The vaccines are manufactured differently and therefore have different mechanisms of protection.
The MenACWY vaccine uses parts of the sugar capsule within each of the bacteria and joins them to a protein. This is called a “conjugate vaccine” and allows for a better immune response, especially in young infants.
The MenB vaccine does not contain the sugar capsule but includes four other proteins from the surface of the meningococcal B bacteria.
The MenACWY vaccine is funded under the National Immunisation Program, and given for free, to all infants aged 12 months. There is also a free catch-up program for teens in Year 10.
The MenB vaccine recommended for all infants aged six weeks or more. But it’s only available for free to infants in South Australia and Queensland, through state-based programs, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants nationally, via the National Immunisation Program.
Parents of non-Indigenous infants in other states will pay around A$220–270 for two doses of the MenB vaccine.
The MenB vaccine is highly protective against invasive disease for the person who receives the vaccine. But it does not eradicate the bacteria from the throat, nor does it decrease spread of the bacteria to others.
Reducing meningococcal disease
Other people who are at high risk of meningococcal exposure are also recommended for vaccination: people without a functional spleen, those with certain immunocompromising conditions, certain travellers and some lab workers.
The MenB vaccine has also been shown to lower rates of another bacterial infection, gonorrhoea, by 33–47%. This is because the gonococcal bacteria is closely related and shares similar surface protein structures to meningococcal bacteria.
The Northern Territory began offering the vaccine to people aged 14 to 19 last year as part of a research trial.
Further research is underway in Australia to better understand the meningococcal bacteria, its capability to evade the immune system and the cross protection against gonorrhoea.
Archana Koirala has worked on research funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW health. She is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney
Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if they’re eligible for vaccination.
Invasive meningococcal disease is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. Invasive means the infection spreads rapidly through the blood and into your organs.
Early emergency medical care is important for survival and to reduce the chance of long-term complications. Even in those who survive, up to 30% suffer permanent cognitive, physical or psychological disabilities.
Thankfully, vaccines are available to protect against it.
The bacteria does not easily pass from person to person by breathing the same air or sharing drinks or food – and the bacteria do not survive well outside the human body.
It is spread through close and prolonged contact of oral and respiratory secretions, such as saliva, from others who live in your household or through deep, intimate kissing.
There is no way to know if you carry the bacteria, as carriers don’t have symptoms.
Who is most at risk?
Meningococcal disease can affect anyone.
But infants under one, adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 years, and people without a spleen or who are immunosuppressed are at a higher risk of developing invasive disease.
Meningococcal disease notifications by age and sex
Although sensitive to common antibiotics such as penicillin, the meningococcal bacteria can cause severe infection and death in a matter of hours. The difficulty in picking up meningococcal disease early is that, early on, it can mimic common viral illnesses that people would recover from without any treatment.
Most people experience a sudden onset of fever, difficulty looking at light and/or a rash. The rash is non-blanching, meaning it doesn’t fade when you apply pressure to it. But early in the illness, it can start out as a blanching rash that fades with pressure.
Young infants may also become irritable, have difficulty waking up, or refuse to feed.
The bacteria usually causes a meningitis – inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord – or a bloodstream infection, called septicemia or sepsis. But sometimes it can cause an infection of the bone, lungs (pneumonia) or eyes (conjunctivitis).
Protection against different strains
There are 13 types of meningococcal bacteria that cause invasive disease, but types A, B, C, W and Y cause the most illness.
The rapid disease progression occurs because the bacteria has a sugar capsule which allows it to evade the immune system.
But each of the 13 types has its own unique capsule. So immunity to one strain does not offer immunity to other strains.
Currently, two types of vaccines are available: a vaccine that protects against meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY); and another vaccine that protects against meningococcal B.
The vaccines are manufactured differently and therefore have different mechanisms of protection.
The MenACWY vaccine uses parts of the sugar capsule within each of the bacteria and joins them to a protein. This is called a “conjugate vaccine” and allows for a better immune response, especially in young infants.
The MenB vaccine does not contain the sugar capsule but includes four other proteins from the surface of the meningococcal B bacteria.
The MenACWY vaccine is funded under the National Immunisation Program, and given for free, to all infants aged 12 months. There is also a free catch-up program for teens in Year 10.
The MenB vaccine recommended for all infants aged six weeks or more. But it’s only available for free to infants in South Australia and Queensland, through state-based programs, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants nationally, via the National Immunisation Program.
Parents of non-Indigenous infants in other states will pay around A$220–270 for two doses of the MenB vaccine.
The MenB vaccine is highly protective against invasive disease for the person who receives the vaccine. But it does not eradicate the bacteria from the throat, nor does it decrease spread of the bacteria to others.
Reducing meningococcal disease
Other people who are at high risk of meningococcal exposure are also recommended for vaccination: people without a functional spleen, those with certain immunocompromising conditions, certain travellers and some lab workers.
The MenB vaccine has also been shown to lower rates of another bacterial infection, gonorrhoea, by 33–47%. This is because the gonococcal bacteria is closely related and shares similar surface protein structures to meningococcal bacteria.
The Northern Territory began offering the vaccine to people aged 14 to 19 last year as part of a research trial.
Further research is underway in Australia to better understand the meningococcal bacteria, its capability to evade the immune system and the cross protection against gonorrhoea.
Archana Koirala has worked on research funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW health. She is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.
New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year.
This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local political leader calling it “a significant escalation” between Avarua and Wellington.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.
On Thursday (Wednesday local time), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told Parliament that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
“We have been aware that this core sector support would not be forthcoming in this budget because this had not been signed off by the New Zealand government in previous months, so it has not been included in the budget that we are debating this week,” he said.
The agreements focus in areas of economy, infrastructure and maritime cooperation and seabed mineral development, among others. They do not include security or defence.
However, to New Zealand’s annoyance, Brown did not discuss the details with it first.
Prior to signing, Brown said he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit to China.
Afterwards, a spokesperson for Peters released a statement saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of the countries’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.
The Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. The country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence.
Cook Islanders also hold New Zealand passports entitling them to live and work there.
In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a joint centenary declaration, which required the two to “consult regularly on defence and security issues”.
The Cook Islands did not think it needed to consult with New Zealand on the China agreement.
Peters said there is an expectation that the government of the Cook Islands would not pursue policies that were “significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests”.
A spokesperson for Peters said at the time said the New Zealand government noted the mining agreements and would analyse them.
How New Zealand reacted On Thursday morning, Peters said the Cook Islands had not lived up to the 2001 declaration.
Peters said the Cook Islands had failed to give satisfactory answers to New Zealand’s questions about the arrangement.
“We have made it very clear in our response to statements that were being made — which we do not think laid out the facts and truth behind this matter — of what New Zealand’s position is,” he said.
“We’ve got responsibilities ourselves here. And we wanted to make sure that we didn’t put a step wrong in our commitment and our special arrangement which goes back decades.”
Officials would be working through what the Cook Islands had to do so New Zealand was satisfied the funding could resume.
He said New Zealand’s message was conveyed to the Cook Islands government “in its finality” on June 4.
“When we made this decision, we said to them our senior officials need to work on clearing up this misunderstanding and confusion about our arrangements and about our relationship.”
Asked about the timing of Luxon’s visit to China, and what he thought the response from China might be, Peters said the decision to pause the funding was not connected to China.
He said he had raised the matter with his China counterpart Wang Yi, when he last visited China in February, and Wang understood New Zealand’s relationship with the Cook Islands.
Concerns in the Cook Islands Over the past three years, New Zealand has provided nearly $194.6 million (about US$117m) to the Cook Islands through the development programme.
Cook Islands opposition leader Tina Browne said she was deeply concerned about the pause.
Browne said she was informed of the funding pause on Wednesday night, and she was worried about the indication from Peters that it might affect future funding.
She issued a “please explain” request to Mark Brown:
“The prime minister has been leading the country to think that everything with New Zealand has been repaired, hunky dory, etcetera — trust is still there,” she said.
“Wham-bam, we get this in the Cook Islands News this morning. What does that tell you?”
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown (left) and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters in Rarotonga in February last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon
Will NZ’s action ‘be a very good news story’ for Beijing? Massey University’s defence and security expert Dr Anna Powles told RNZ Pacific that aid should not be on the table in debate between New Zealand and the Cook Islands.
“That spirit of the [2001] declaration is really in question here,” she said.
“The negotiation between the two countries needs to take aid as a bargaining chip off the table for it to be able to continue — for it to be successful.”
Dr Powles said New Zealand’s moves might help China strengthen its hand in the Pacific.
She said China could contrast its position on using aid as a bargaining chip.
“By Beijing being able to tell its partners in the region, ‘we would never do that, and certainly we would never seek to leverage our relationships in this way’. This could be a very good news story for China, and it certainly puts New Zealand in a weaker position, as a consequence.”
However, a prominent Cook Islands lawyer said it was fair that New Zealand was pressing pause.
Norman George said Brown should implore New Zealand for forgiveness.
“It is absolutely a fair thing to do because our prime minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
Brown has not responded to multiple attempts by RNZ Pacific for comment.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year.
This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local political leader calling it “a significant escalation” between Avarua and Wellington.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.
On Thursday (Wednesday local time), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told Parliament that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
“We have been aware that this core sector support would not be forthcoming in this budget because this had not been signed off by the New Zealand government in previous months, so it has not been included in the budget that we are debating this week,” he said.
The agreements focus in areas of economy, infrastructure and maritime cooperation and seabed mineral development, among others. They do not include security or defence.
However, to New Zealand’s annoyance, Brown did not discuss the details with it first.
Prior to signing, Brown said he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit to China.
Afterwards, a spokesperson for Peters released a statement saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of the countries’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.
The Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. The country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence.
Cook Islanders also hold New Zealand passports entitling them to live and work there.
In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a joint centenary declaration, which required the two to “consult regularly on defence and security issues”.
The Cook Islands did not think it needed to consult with New Zealand on the China agreement.
Peters said there is an expectation that the government of the Cook Islands would not pursue policies that were “significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests”.
A spokesperson for Peters said at the time said the New Zealand government noted the mining agreements and would analyse them.
How New Zealand reacted On Thursday morning, Peters said the Cook Islands had not lived up to the 2001 declaration.
Peters said the Cook Islands had failed to give satisfactory answers to New Zealand’s questions about the arrangement.
“We have made it very clear in our response to statements that were being made — which we do not think laid out the facts and truth behind this matter — of what New Zealand’s position is,” he said.
“We’ve got responsibilities ourselves here. And we wanted to make sure that we didn’t put a step wrong in our commitment and our special arrangement which goes back decades.”
Officials would be working through what the Cook Islands had to do so New Zealand was satisfied the funding could resume.
He said New Zealand’s message was conveyed to the Cook Islands government “in its finality” on June 4.
“When we made this decision, we said to them our senior officials need to work on clearing up this misunderstanding and confusion about our arrangements and about our relationship.”
Asked about the timing of Luxon’s visit to China, and what he thought the response from China might be, Peters said the decision to pause the funding was not connected to China.
He said he had raised the matter with his China counterpart Wang Yi, when he last visited China in February, and Wang understood New Zealand’s relationship with the Cook Islands.
Concerns in the Cook Islands Over the past three years, New Zealand has provided nearly $194.6 million (about US$117m) to the Cook Islands through the development programme.
Cook Islands opposition leader Tina Browne said she was deeply concerned about the pause.
Browne said she was informed of the funding pause on Wednesday night, and she was worried about the indication from Peters that it might affect future funding.
She issued a “please explain” request to Mark Brown:
“The prime minister has been leading the country to think that everything with New Zealand has been repaired, hunky dory, etcetera — trust is still there,” she said.
“Wham-bam, we get this in the Cook Islands News this morning. What does that tell you?”
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown (left) and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters in Rarotonga in February last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon
Will NZ’s action ‘be a very good news story’ for Beijing? Massey University’s defence and security expert Dr Anna Powles told RNZ Pacific that aid should not be on the table in debate between New Zealand and the Cook Islands.
“That spirit of the [2001] declaration is really in question here,” she said.
“The negotiation between the two countries needs to take aid as a bargaining chip off the table for it to be able to continue — for it to be successful.”
Dr Powles said New Zealand’s moves might help China strengthen its hand in the Pacific.
She said China could contrast its position on using aid as a bargaining chip.
“By Beijing being able to tell its partners in the region, ‘we would never do that, and certainly we would never seek to leverage our relationships in this way’. This could be a very good news story for China, and it certainly puts New Zealand in a weaker position, as a consequence.”
However, a prominent Cook Islands lawyer said it was fair that New Zealand was pressing pause.
Norman George said Brown should implore New Zealand for forgiveness.
“It is absolutely a fair thing to do because our prime minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
Brown has not responded to multiple attempts by RNZ Pacific for comment.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.
On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said:
“The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003. The IC is monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorise its nuclear weapons programme”
Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.
Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.
It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.
Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:
“Shamkhani said Iran is willing to commit to never having a nuclear weapon, to get rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, to only enrich to a level needed for civilian use and to allow inspectors in to oversee it all, in exchange for lifting all sanctions immediately. He said Iran would accept that deal tonight.”
Inside Iran as Trump presses for nuclear deal. Video: NBC News
Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.
A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:
“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”
On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.
It is worth noting how the TheNew York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:
“But it is the Ayatollah himself who is doing the devil’s work by inciting and condoning the student invasion of the American and British Embassies in Tehran. This is not just a diplomatic affront; it is a declaration of war on diplomacy itself, on usages and traditions honoured by all nations, however old and new, whatever belief.
“The immunities given a ruler’s emissaries were respected by the kings of Persia during wars with Greece and by the Ayatollah’s spiritual ancestors during the Crusades.”
Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.
Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.
“No, it’s not right. I didn’t stop them. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can. It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
“But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, but I didn’t say no. Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.”
— US President Donald Trump
In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.
In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.
Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.
Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.
By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.
Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.
American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.
In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.
In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.
Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.
An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.
Iranian electricity production in 2023. Source: Advanced Energy Technologies
With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.
One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.
Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.
He told Meet the Press on May 4 that “total dismantlement” of the nuclear program is “all I would accept.” He suggested that Iran does not need nuclear energy because of its oil reserves. But on May 7, when asked specifically about allowing Iran to retain a limited enrichment program, Trump said “we haven’t made that decision yet.”
Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a May 14 interview with NBC that Iran is ready to sign a deal with the United States and reiterated that Iran is willing to limit uranium enrichment to low levels. He previously suggested in a May 7 post on X that any deal should include a “recognition of Iran’s right to industrial enrichment.”
That recognition, plus the removal of U.S. and international sanctions, “can guarantee a deal,” Shamkhani said.
So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.
One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.
In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.
The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”
20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.
Netanyahu’s Iran nuclear warnings. Video: Al Jazeera
The misguided efforts of Israel and the United States to contain Iran’s use of nuclear technology are not only counterproductive — they risk being a catastrophic failure. If one was going to design a policy to convince Iran nuclear weapons may be needed for its own defence, it is hard to imagine a policy more effective than the one Israel has pursued for the past 30 years.My 2007 Peace Researcher article asked a simple question: ‘Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?’ My introduction could have been written yesterday.
“With all the talk about Iran and the intentions of its nuclear programme it is a shame the West continues to undermine its own position with selective morality and obvious hypocrisy. It seems amazing there can be so much written about this issue, yet so little addresses the obvious question – ‘for what reasons could Iran want nuclear weapons?’.
“As Simon Jenkins (2006) points out, the answer is as simple as looking at a map. ‘I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has no right’ to nuclear defence?’”
This week the German Foreign Office reached new heights in hypocrisy with this absurd tweet.
Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel does. Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not. Iran allows IAEA inspections. Israel does not.
Starting another war will not make us forget, nor forgive what Israel is doing in Gaza.
From the river to the sea, credibility requires consistency.
I write about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. I don’t like war very much.
Joe Hendren writes about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. Republished with his permission. Read this original article on his Substack account with full references.
Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.
On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said:
“The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003. The IC is monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorise its nuclear weapons programme”
Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.
Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.
It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.
Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:
“Shamkhani said Iran is willing to commit to never having a nuclear weapon, to get rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, to only enrich to a level needed for civilian use and to allow inspectors in to oversee it all, in exchange for lifting all sanctions immediately. He said Iran would accept that deal tonight.”
Inside Iran as Trump presses for nuclear deal. Video: NBC News
Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.
A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:
“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”
On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.
It is worth noting how the TheNew York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:
“But it is the Ayatollah himself who is doing the devil’s work by inciting and condoning the student invasion of the American and British Embassies in Tehran. This is not just a diplomatic affront; it is a declaration of war on diplomacy itself, on usages and traditions honoured by all nations, however old and new, whatever belief.
“The immunities given a ruler’s emissaries were respected by the kings of Persia during wars with Greece and by the Ayatollah’s spiritual ancestors during the Crusades.”
Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.
Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.
“No, it’s not right. I didn’t stop them. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can. It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
“But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, but I didn’t say no. Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.”
— US President Donald Trump
In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.
In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.
Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.
Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.
By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.
Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.
American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.
In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.
In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.
Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.
An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.
Iranian electricity production in 2023. Source: Advanced Energy Technologies
With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.
One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.
Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.
He told Meet the Press on May 4 that “total dismantlement” of the nuclear program is “all I would accept.” He suggested that Iran does not need nuclear energy because of its oil reserves. But on May 7, when asked specifically about allowing Iran to retain a limited enrichment program, Trump said “we haven’t made that decision yet.”
Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a May 14 interview with NBC that Iran is ready to sign a deal with the United States and reiterated that Iran is willing to limit uranium enrichment to low levels. He previously suggested in a May 7 post on X that any deal should include a “recognition of Iran’s right to industrial enrichment.”
That recognition, plus the removal of U.S. and international sanctions, “can guarantee a deal,” Shamkhani said.
So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.
One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.
In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.
The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”
20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.
Netanyahu’s Iran nuclear warnings. Video: Al Jazeera
The misguided efforts of Israel and the United States to contain Iran’s use of nuclear technology are not only counterproductive — they risk being a catastrophic failure. If one was going to design a policy to convince Iran nuclear weapons may be needed for its own defence, it is hard to imagine a policy more effective than the one Israel has pursued for the past 30 years.My 2007 Peace Researcher article asked a simple question: ‘Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?’ My introduction could have been written yesterday.
“With all the talk about Iran and the intentions of its nuclear programme it is a shame the West continues to undermine its own position with selective morality and obvious hypocrisy. It seems amazing there can be so much written about this issue, yet so little addresses the obvious question – ‘for what reasons could Iran want nuclear weapons?’.
“As Simon Jenkins (2006) points out, the answer is as simple as looking at a map. ‘I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has no right’ to nuclear defence?’”
This week the German Foreign Office reached new heights in hypocrisy with this absurd tweet.
Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel does. Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not. Iran allows IAEA inspections. Israel does not.
Starting another war will not make us forget, nor forgive what Israel is doing in Gaza.
From the river to the sea, credibility requires consistency.
I write about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. I don’t like war very much.
Joe Hendren writes about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. Republished with his permission. Read this original article on his Substack account with full references.
On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal?
For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a new leader.
It could all go badly wrong, but she’s right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse.
Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised “Canberra bubble” and bypassed them when he could. That didn’t serve him well – not least because he wasn’t toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail.
Ley’s office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who’s appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the government (such as links to ministers’ former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister’s Office. One of Ley’s press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton’s media staff.
To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn’t terrible. She’s struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump.
Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her.
One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? Howard’s old “broad church” answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party’s conservatives are hardline, have hold of the party’s (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape its key policies in a way that will appeal to small-l liberal voters in urban seats.
Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals’ core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,“I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are”. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they’d be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one.
For the opposition. net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term – and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders.
Three: Won’t it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: “Each of our [Liberal state] divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to [candidate] selections”. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven’t worked.
Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with John Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government’s reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials.
More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the government will have to negotiate on legislation with either the opposition or the Greens. If the opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals’ point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor’s partner. How does that sit with them philosophically?
Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal state organisations, especially in NSW (her home state) and Victoria?
The Liberals’ federal executive extended federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate backbiting, with conservatives seeing it advantaging the moderates. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke – whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet – from Scott Morrison’s old centre right faction, and she has a staffer from that faction in a senior position in her office. The faction has also protected her preselection in the past.
In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. Some Liberals think the state party could even lose what should be the unlosable state election next year.
That’s just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won’t be hard for them – mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement – that will be the difficult bit.
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.
On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal?
For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a new leader.
It could all go badly wrong, but she’s right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse.
Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised “Canberra bubble” and bypassed them when he could. That didn’t serve him well – not least because he wasn’t toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail.
Ley’s office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who’s appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the government (such as links to ministers’ former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister’s Office. One of Ley’s press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton’s media staff.
To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn’t terrible. She’s struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump.
Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her.
One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? Howard’s old “broad church” answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party’s conservatives are hardline, have hold of the party’s (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape its key policies in a way that will appeal to small-l liberal voters in urban seats.
Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals’ core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,“I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are”. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they’d be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one.
For the opposition. net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term – and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders.
Three: Won’t it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: “Each of our [Liberal state] divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to [candidate] selections”. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven’t worked.
Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with John Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government’s reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials.
More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the government will have to negotiate on legislation with either the opposition or the Greens. If the opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals’ point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor’s partner. How does that sit with them philosophically?
Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal state organisations, especially in NSW (her home state) and Victoria?
The Liberals’ federal executive extended federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate backbiting, with conservatives seeing it advantaging the moderates. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke – whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet – from Scott Morrison’s old centre right faction, and she has a staffer from that faction in a senior position in her office. The faction has also protected her preselection in the past.
In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. Some Liberals think the state party could even lose what should be the unlosable state election next year.
That’s just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won’t be hard for them – mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement – that will be the difficult bit.
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.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo
Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo.
In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo to Gaza to lend support.
The land of oranges and pyramids became the land of autocracy last week as peace aid volunteers — young, middle-aged, and elderly — were herded like cattle and cordoned behind fences.
Their passports were initially seized — and later returned. Several New Zealanders were among those dragged and beaten.
While ordinary Egyptians showed “huge support” for the GMTG, the militant Egyptian regime showed its hand in supporting Israel rather than Palestine.
A member of the delegation, Natasha*, said she and other members pursued every available diplomatic channel to ensure that the peaceful, humanitarian, march would reach Gaza.
Moved by love, they were met with hate.
Violently attacked “When I stepped toward the crowd’s edge and began instinctually with heart break to chant, ‘Free Palestine,’ I was violently attacked by five plainclothes men.
“They screamed, grabbed, shoved, and even spat on me,” she said.
Tackled, she was dragged to an unmarked van. She did not resist, posed no threat, yet the violence escalated instantly.
“I saw hatred in their eyes.”
Egyptian state security forces and embedded provocateurs were intent on dismantling and discrediting the Global March activists. Image: GMTG
Another GMTG member, a woman who tried to intervene was also “viciously assaulted”. She witnessed at least three other women and two men being attacked.
The peacemakers escaped from the unmarked van the aggressors were distracted, seemingly confused about their destination, she said.
It is now clear that from the beginning Egyptian State forces and embedded provocateurs were intent on dismantling and discrediting the GMTG.
Authorities as provocateurs The peace participants witnessed plainclothed authorities act as provacateurs, “shoving people, stepping on them, throwing objects” to create a false image for media.
New Zealand actor Will Alexander . . . “This is only a fraction of what Palestinians experience every day.” GMTG
New Zealand actor Will Alexander said the experience had inflated rather than deflated his passion for human rights, and compassion for Palestinians.
“This is only a fraction of what Palestinians experience everyday. Palestinians pushed into smaller and smaller areas are murdered for wanting to stand on their own land,” he said.
“The reason that ordinary New Zealanders like us need to put our bodies on the line is because our government has failed to uphold its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
“Israel has blatantly breached international law for decades with total impunity.”
While the New Zealanders are all safe, a small number of people in the wider movement had been forcibly ‘disappeared’,” said GMTG New Zealand member Sam Leason.
Their whereabouts was still unknown, he said.
Arab members targeted “It must be emphasised that it is primarily — and possibly strictly — Arab members of the March who are the targets of the most dramatic and violent excesses committed by the Egyptian authorities, including all forced disappearances.”
Global March to Gaza activists being attacked . . . the genocide cannot be sustained when people from around the world push against the Israeli regime and support the people on the ground with food and healthcare. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
This did, however, continuously add to the mounting sense of stress, tension, anxiety and fear, felt by the contingent, he said.
“Especially given the Egyptian authorities’ disregard to their own legal system, which leaves us blindsided and in a thick fog of uncertainty.”
Moving swiftly through the streets of Cairo in the pitch of night, from hotel to hotel and safehouse to safehouse, was a “surreal and dystopian” experience for the New Zealanders and other GMTG members.
The group says that the genocide cannot be sustained when people from around the world push against the Israeli regime and support the people on the ground with food and healthcare.
“For 20 months our hearts have raced and our eyes have filled in unison with the elderly, men, women, and children, and the babies in Palestine,” said Billie*, a participant who preferred, for safety reasons, not to reveal their surname.
“If we do not react to the carnage, suffering and complete injustice and recognise our shared need for sane governance and a liveable planet what is the point?”
Experienced despair Aqua*, another New Zealand GMTG member, had experienced despair seeing the suffering of Palestinians, but she said it was important to nurture hope, as that was the only way to stop the genocide.
“We cling to every glimmer of hope that presents itself. Like an oasis in a desert devoid of human emotion we chase any potential igniter of the flame of change.”
Activist Eva Mulla . . . inspired by the courage of the Palestinians. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
Ava Mulla, said from Cairo, that the group was inspired by the courage of the Palestinians.
“They’ve been fighting for freedom and justice for decades against the world’s strongest powers. They are courageous and steadfast.”
Mulla referred to the “We Were Seeds” saying inspired by Greek poet Dinos Christianopoulos.
“We are millions of seeds. Every act of injustice fuels our growth,” she said.
Helplessness an illusion The GMTG members agreed that “impotence and helplessness was an illusion” that led to inaction but such inaction allowed “unspeakable atrocities” to take place.
“This is the holocaust of our age,” said Sam Leason.
“We need the world to leave the rhetorical and symbolic field of discourse and move promptly towards the camp of concrete action to protect the people of Palestine from a clear campaign of extermination.”
Saige England is an Aotearoa New Zealand journalist, author, and poet, member of the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA), and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
*Several protesters quoted in this article requested that their family names not be reported for security reasons. Ava Mulla was born in Germany and lives in Aotearoa with her partner, actor Will Alexander. She studied industrial engineering and is passionate about innovative housing solutions for developing countries. She is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
New Zealand and other activists with Tino Rangatiratanga and Palestine flags taking part in the Global March To Gaza. Will Alexander (far left) is in the back row and Ava Mulla (pink tee shirt) is in the front row. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
SPECIAL REPORT:By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo
Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo.
In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo to Gaza to lend support.
The land of oranges and pyramids became the land of autocracy last week as peace aid volunteers — young, middle-aged, and elderly — were herded like cattle and cordoned behind fences.
Their passports were initially seized — and later returned. Several New Zealanders were among those dragged and beaten.
While ordinary Egyptians showed “huge support” for the GMTG, the militant Egyptian regime showed its hand in supporting Israel rather than Palestine.
A member of the delegation, Natasha*, said she and other members pursued every available diplomatic channel to ensure that the peaceful, humanitarian, march would reach Gaza.
Moved by love, they were met with hate.
Violently attacked “When I stepped toward the crowd’s edge and began instinctually with heart break to chant, ‘Free Palestine,’ I was violently attacked by five plainclothes men.
“They screamed, grabbed, shoved, and even spat on me,” she said.
Tackled, she was dragged to an unmarked van. She did not resist, posed no threat, yet the violence escalated instantly.
“I saw hatred in their eyes.”
Egyptian state security forces and embedded provocateurs were intent on dismantling and discrediting the Global March activists. Image: GMTG
Another GMTG member, a woman who tried to intervene was also “viciously assaulted”. She witnessed at least three other women and two men being attacked.
The peacemakers escaped from the unmarked van the aggressors were distracted, seemingly confused about their destination, she said.
It is now clear that from the beginning Egyptian State forces and embedded provocateurs were intent on dismantling and discrediting the GMTG.
Authorities as provocateurs The peace participants witnessed plainclothed authorities act as provacateurs, “shoving people, stepping on them, throwing objects” to create a false image for media.
New Zealand actor Will Alexander . . . “This is only a fraction of what Palestinians experience every day.” GMTG
New Zealand actor Will Alexander said the experience had inflated rather than deflated his passion for human rights, and compassion for Palestinians.
“This is only a fraction of what Palestinians experience everyday. Palestinians pushed into smaller and smaller areas are murdered for wanting to stand on their own land,” he said.
“The reason that ordinary New Zealanders like us need to put our bodies on the line is because our government has failed to uphold its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
“Israel has blatantly breached international law for decades with total impunity.”
While the New Zealanders are all safe, a small number of people in the wider movement had been forcibly ‘disappeared’,” said GMTG New Zealand member Sam Leason.
Their whereabouts was still unknown, he said.
Arab members targeted “It must be emphasised that it is primarily — and possibly strictly — Arab members of the March who are the targets of the most dramatic and violent excesses committed by the Egyptian authorities, including all forced disappearances.”
Global March to Gaza activists being attacked . . . the genocide cannot be sustained when people from around the world push against the Israeli regime and support the people on the ground with food and healthcare. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
This did, however, continuously add to the mounting sense of stress, tension, anxiety and fear, felt by the contingent, he said.
“Especially given the Egyptian authorities’ disregard to their own legal system, which leaves us blindsided and in a thick fog of uncertainty.”
Moving swiftly through the streets of Cairo in the pitch of night, from hotel to hotel and safehouse to safehouse, was a “surreal and dystopian” experience for the New Zealanders and other GMTG members.
The group says that the genocide cannot be sustained when people from around the world push against the Israeli regime and support the people on the ground with food and healthcare.
“For 20 months our hearts have raced and our eyes have filled in unison with the elderly, men, women, and children, and the babies in Palestine,” said Billie*, a participant who preferred, for safety reasons, not to reveal their surname.
“If we do not react to the carnage, suffering and complete injustice and recognise our shared need for sane governance and a liveable planet what is the point?”
Experienced despair Aqua*, another New Zealand GMTG member, had experienced despair seeing the suffering of Palestinians, but she said it was important to nurture hope, as that was the only way to stop the genocide.
“We cling to every glimmer of hope that presents itself. Like an oasis in a desert devoid of human emotion we chase any potential igniter of the flame of change.”
Activist Eva Mulla . . . inspired by the courage of the Palestinians. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
Ava Mulla, said from Cairo, that the group was inspired by the courage of the Palestinians.
“They’ve been fighting for freedom and justice for decades against the world’s strongest powers. They are courageous and steadfast.”
Mulla referred to the “We Were Seeds” saying inspired by Greek poet Dinos Christianopoulos.
“We are millions of seeds. Every act of injustice fuels our growth,” she said.
Helplessness an illusion The GMTG members agreed that “impotence and helplessness was an illusion” that led to inaction but such inaction allowed “unspeakable atrocities” to take place.
“This is the holocaust of our age,” said Sam Leason.
“We need the world to leave the rhetorical and symbolic field of discourse and move promptly towards the camp of concrete action to protect the people of Palestine from a clear campaign of extermination.”
Saige England is an Aotearoa New Zealand journalist, author, and poet, member of the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA), and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
*Several protesters quoted in this article requested that their family names not be reported for security reasons. Ava Mulla was born in Germany and lives in Aotearoa with her partner, actor Will Alexander. She studied industrial engineering and is passionate about innovative housing solutions for developing countries. She is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
New Zealand and other activists with Tino Rangatiratanga and Palestine flags taking part in the Global March To Gaza. Will Alexander (far left) is in the back row and Ava Mulla (pink tee shirt) is in the front row. Image: GMTG screenshot APR
Faced with the choice in their daily lives, their work or their politics, why do some people decide to keep quiet, to censor themselves in anticipatory obedience, even if they’re not ordered to do so?
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we talk to self-censorship expert Daniel Bar-Tal about what drives people to censor themselves, and its consequences for society.
It was Daniel Bar-Tal’s experiences serving in the Israeli army that prompted him to begin studying self-censorship. “ I was observing all kind of phenomenon that are going on within a country that is engaged in intractable conflict,” he told us.
Bar-Tal, an emeritus professor in the school of education at Tel Aviv University, began to notice that self-censorship was essential in societies, like Israel, living in conflict. He explains:
There are all kind of directives which develop censorship, in the army, in school, teachers are told what they should do and say. But self-censorship is going beyond this. So it means that nobody tells you that you must say A or B or C, but you feel an obligation by yourself to say certain things without any order from above.
Bar-Tal assembled a team of researchers from different disciplines to examine how self-censorship plays out across different sectors of a society, from politics to academia to journalism. They found three main motivations why people self-censor: as a defence mechanism for their in-group; out of fear; and to win rewards.
Listen to Bar-Tal talk about his research into self-censorship on the latest episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, which includes an introduction from Beth Daley, executive editor at The Conversation U.S. about self-censorship currently happening in parts of American academia.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood with assistance from Mend Mariwany. Gemma Ware is the executive producer. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Daniel Bar-Tal 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.
For centuries, humans have searched for ways to extend life. Alchemists never found the philosopher’s stone, but scientists have consistently shown that a longer life can be attained by eating less – at least in certain lab animals. But can we find a way to live longer while still enjoying our food?
Compounds that mimic the biological effects of dieting could be the answer, and the two most popular diet-mimicking drugs are rapamycin and metformin. In a new study, my colleagues and I found that rapamycin prolongs life almost as consistently as eating less, whereas metformin does not.
Eating less, or dietary restriction, has been the gold standard for achieving a longer life ever since a study nearly a century ago in which laboratory rats that ate less surprised scientists by outliving their well-fed lab mates.
But for many people, sticking to a permanent diet is hard and far from enjoyable. Also, if taken to extremes, it can even be bad for health. That is why we wanted to know whether drugs that are dieting mimics could bring the same benefit of eating less without the unwanted side-effects.
Rapamycin was first discovered in bacteria living in Easter Island soil in the 1970s, and medical professionals now use it to prevent organ-transplant rejection, as it is a powerful immunosuppressant. It works by blocking a molecular switch that tells cells when nutrients are abundant.
Metformin, meanwhile, is a synthetic descendant of a compound found in French lilac (also known as goat’s rue) and is widely prescribed to control blood sugar in type 2 diabetes. Both drugs are involved in the body’s ability to sense nutrients and energy, so biologists like us hoped they might copy the mechanisms activated by eating less.
To find out, we pooled the results of many studies to see if there were any overall patterns. We carefully examined thousands of scientific papers to finally home in on 167 studies on eight vertebrate species, from fish to monkeys, that provided sufficient details on survival and how the study was done. Then we compared three longevity strategies: eating less, taking rapamycin and taking metformin.
We found that eating less still came out on top as the most consistent way to prolong life in all animals but rapamycin was close behind. Metformin, in contrast, showed no clear benefit. The life-extension effect of eating less was the same in both sexes, and it didn’t matter whether the diet plan involved eating smaller portions or intermittent fasting.
That makes rapamycin one of the most exciting leads for new anti-ageing therapies. Ageing might not be considered a disease, but it is a risk factor behind many diseases from cancer to dementia. If we slow that underlying process, the benefit will be extra years of quality life and lower healthcare bills as the world’s population grows older.
Rapamycin was first isolated from bacteria found in the soil on Easter Island. JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock.com
Encouraging early signs, but we’re not quite there yet
However, there are some important points to consider. First, we discovered considerable variation from experiment to experiment with some studies even showing that eating less or taking rapamycin reduced lifespan.
Also, most of the evidence originates from mice and rats that have many of our genes but are clearly not exactly like us.
Finally, rapamycin may have side-effects such as repressing immunity and reproduction. Researchers are now investigating milder doses of rapamycin to see if they provide the advantages without the side-effects.
The preliminary signs are encouraging. In an ongoing human rapamycin trial, volunteers given low, intermittent doses of rapamycin have experienced positive effects on indicators of healthspan. For metformin, the human trial is still in progress and the findings are expected to be out in a few years time.
For now, nobody should run to their doctor asking for prescriptions of rapamycin to live longer. But this drug, extracted from obscure soil bacteria, shows us that interfering with a single molecular pathway can be enough to mimic the benefits of eating less. The challenge is to use this discovery to produce therapies that make us healthier for longer without compromising our quality of life – or our taste for the occasional slice of chocolate cake.
Dr. Zahida Sultanova works for the University of East Anglia and is funded by the Leverhulme Trust. She is a member of European Society of Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Society of Turkey (EkoEvo).
The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one.
As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate, and told in furtive whispers about people’s encounters with the dead.
The dead haunt our imagination in a number of different forms, whether as “cold spots”, or the walking dead popularised in zombie franchises such as 28 Days Later.
The franchise’s latest release, 28 Years Later, brings back the Hollywood zombie in all its glory – but these archetypal creatures have a much wider and varied history.
Zombis, revenants and the returning dead
A zombie is typically a reanimated corpse: a category of the returning dead. Scholars refer to them as “revenants”, and continue to argue over their exact characteristics.
In the Haitian Vodou religion, the zombi is not the same as the Hollywood zombie. Instead, zombi are people who, as a religious punishment, are drugged, buried alive, then dug out and forced into slavery.
The Hollywood zombie, however, draws more from medieval European stories about the returning dead than from Vodou.
A perfect setting for a ‘zombie’ film
In 28 Years Later, the latest entry in Danny Boyle’s blockbuster horror franchise, the monsters technically aren’t zombies because they aren’t dead. Instead, they are infected by a “rage virus”, accidentally released by a group of animal rights activists in the beginning of the first film.
This third film focuses on events almost three decades after the first film. The British Isles is quarantined, and the young protagonist Spike (Alfie Williams) and his family live in a village on Lindisfarne Island. This island, one of the most important sites in early medieval British Christianity, is isolated and protected by a tidal causeway that links it to the mainland.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Alfie Williams star in the new film, out in Australian cinemas today. Sony Pictures
The film leans heavily on how we imagine the medieval world, with scenes showing silhouetted fletchers at work making arrows, children training with bows, towering ossuaries and various memento mori. There’s also footage from earlier depictions of medieval warfare. And at one point, the characters seek sanctuary in the ruins of Fountains Abbey, in Yorkshire, which was built in 1132.
The medieval locations and imagery of 28 Years Later evoke the long history of revenants, and the returned dead who once roved medieval England.
Early accounts of the medieval dead
In the medieval world, or at least the parts that wrote in Latin, the returning dead were usually called spiritus (“spirit”), but they weren’t limited to the non-corporeal like today’s ghosts are.
Medieval Latin Christians from as early as the 3rd century saw the dead as part of a parallel society that mirrored the world of the living, where each group relied on the other to aid them through the afterlife.
Depiction of the undead from a medieval manuscript. British Library, Yates Thompson MS 13
While some medieval ghosts would warn the living about what awaited sinners in the afterlife, or lead their relatives to treasure, or prophesise the future, some also returned to terrorise the living.
And like the “zombies” affected by the rage virus in 28 Years Later, these revenants could go into a frenzy in the presence of the living.
Thietmar, the Prince-Bishop of Merseburg, Germany, wrote the Chronicon Thietmari (Thietmar’s Chronicle) between 1012 and 1018, and included a number of ghost stories that featured revenants.
Although not all of them framed the dead as terrifying, they certainly didn’t paint them as friendly, either. In one story, a congregation of the dead at a church set the priest upon the altar, before burning him to ashes – intended to be read as a mirror of pagan sacrifice.
These dead were physical beings, capable of seizing a man and sacrificing him in his own church.
A threat to be dealt with
The English monastic historian William of Newburgh (1136–98) wrote revenants were so common in his day that recording them all would be exhausting. According to him, the returned dead were frequently seen in 12th century England.
So, instead of providing a exhausting list, he offered some choice examples which, like most medieval ghost stories, had a good Christian moral attached to them.
William’s revenants mostly killed the people of the towns they lived, returning to the grave between their escapades. But the medieval English had a method for dealing with these monsters; they dug them up, tore out the heart and then burned the body.
Other revenants were dealt with less harshly, William explained. In one case, all it took was the Bishop of Lincoln writing a letter of absolution to stop a dead man returning to his widow’s bed.
These medieval dead were also thought to spread disease – much like those infected with the rage virus – and were capable of physically killing someone.
Depiction of the undead from a medieval manuscript. British Library, Arundel MS 83.
The undead, further north
In medieval Scandinavia and Iceland, the undead draugr were extremely strong, hideous to look at and stunk of decomposition. Some were immune to human weapons and often killed animals near their tombs before building up to kill humans. Like their English counterparts, they also spread disease.
But according to the Eyrbyggja saga, an anonymous 13th or 14th century text written in Iceland, all it took was a type of community court and the threat of legal action to drive off these returned dead.
It’s a method the survivors in 28 Years Later didn’t try.
The dead live on
The first-hand zombie stories that were common during the medieval period started to dwindle in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation, which focused more on individuals’ behaviours and salvation.
Nonetheless, their influence can still be felt in Catholic ritual practices today, such as in prayers offered for the dead, and the lighting of votive candles.
We still tell ghost stories, and we still worry about things that go bump in the night. And of course, we continue to explore the undead in all its forms on the big screen.
Christopher White 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.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is as complex as its name is difficult to pronounce. It’s sometimes referred to as simply “chronic fatigue”, but this is just one of its symptoms.
In fact, ME/CFS is a complex neurological disease, recognised by the World Health Organization, that affects nearly every system in the body.
The name refers to muscle pain (myalgia), inflammation of the brain (encephalomyelitis), and a profound, disabling fatigue that rest can’t relieve.
However, the illness’s complexity – and its disproportionate impact on women – means ME/CFS has often been incorrectly labelled as a psychological disorder.
What is ME/CFS?
ME/CFS affects people of all ages but is most commonly diagnosed in middle age. It is two to three times more common in women than men.
While the exact cause is unknown, ME/CFS is commonly triggered by an infection.
The condition has two core symptoms: a disabling, long-lasting fatigue that rest doesn’t relieve, and a worsening of symptoms after physical or mental exertion.
This is known as post-exertional malaise. It means even slight exertion can make symptoms much worse, and take much longer than expected to recover.
This varies between people, but could mean simply having a shower or attending a social event triggers worse symptoms, either immediately or days later.
These symptoms include pain, sleep issues, cognitive difficulties (such as thinking, memory and decision-making), flu-like symptoms, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, heart rate fluctuations and many more.
For some people, symptoms can be managed in a way that allows them to work. For others, the disease is so severe it can leave them housebound or bedridden.
Symptoms can fluctuate, changing over time and in intensity, making ME/CFS a particularly unpredictable and misunderstood condition.
Not just ‘in your head’
A growing body of scientific evidence, however, clearly shows ME/CFS is a biological, not mental, illness.
Neuroimaging studies have revealed differences in the brain activity and structure of people with ME/CFS, including poor blood flow and lower levels of neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the nervous system).
Other research indicates the condition affects how the body produces energy (the metabolism), fights infection (the immune system), delivers oxygen to muscles and tissues, and regulates blood pressure and heart rate (the vascular system).
Issues with criteria
To diagnose ME/CFS, a clinician will also exclude other possible causes of fatigue, which can be a lengthy process. A patient needs to meet a set of clinical criteria.
But one of the major challenges in researching ME/CFS is that the diagnostic criteria clinicians use vary worldwide.
Some criteria focus solely on fatigue and include people with alternate reasons for fatigue, such as a psychiatric disorder.
Others are more narrow and may only capture ME/CFS patients with more severe symptoms.
As a result, it can be very difficult to compare across different studies, as the reasons they include or exclude participants vary so much.
Most commonly, they follow the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ clinical guidelines to diagnose and manage ME/CFS. These are based on the Canadian Consensus Criteria which are considered more stringent than other ME/CFS diagnostic criteria.
They include post-exertional malaise and fatigue for more than six months as core symptoms.
However, these guidelines are outdated and rely heavily on controversial studies that assumed the primary cause of ME/CFS was “deconditioning” – a loss of physical strength due to a fear or avoidance of exercise.
These guidelines recommend ME/CFS should be treated with cognitive behavioural therapy – a common psychotherapy which focuses on changing unhealthy thoughts and behaviours – and graded exercise therapy, which gradually introduces more demanding physical activity.
While cognitive behaviour therapy can be effective for some people managing ME/CFS, it’s important not to frame this condition primarily as a psychological issue.
Graded exercise therapy can encourage people to push beyond their “energy envelope”, which means they do more than their body can manage. This can trigger post-exertional malaise and a worsening of symptoms.
In June 2024, the Australian government announced A$1.1 million towards developing new clinical guidelines for diagnosing and managing ME/CFS.
Leading organisations have scrapped the recommendation of graded exercise therapy in the United States (in 2015) and the United Kingdom (in 2021). Hopefully Australia will follow suit.
What can people with ME/CFS do?
While we wait for updated clinical guidelines, “pacing” – or working within your energy envelope – has shown some success in managing symptoms. This means monitoring and limiting how much energy you expend.
Some evidence also suggests people who rest in the early stages of their initial illness often experience better long-term outcomes with ME/CFS.
This is especially relevant after the COVID pandemic and with the emergence of long COVID. Studies indicate more than half of those affected meet stringent clinical criteria for ME/CFS.
In times of acute illness we should resist the temptation to push through. Choosing to rest may be a crucial step in preventing a condition that is much more debilitating than the original infection.
Sarah Annesley receives funding from The Judith Jane Mason & Harold Stannett Williams Memorial Foundation and ME Research UK (SCIO charity number SCO36942).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is back in the news this week in a podcast discussing her viral “baby mama” video.
The video was made four years ago when she gave birth to daughter Lilibet, but only released recently. It shows the duchess in hospital, heavily pregnant, dancing and twerking to bring on labour. Her husband, Prince Harry, dances too.
Both of our children were a week past their due dates […] so when spicy food, all that walking, and acupuncture didn’t work – there was only one thing left to do!
So does the Duchess of Sussex have a point? Can dancing really bring on labour?
First, how about dancing during pregnancy?
Exercise is recommended during pregnancy, and while some higher-impact exercises may need to be moderated, it carries minimal risk for healthy women and their babies. In fact, evidence shows regular exercise during pregnancy is associated with a variety of benefits.
Exercise can lead to a lower risk of gestational diabetes, caesarean section, the use of forceps and vacuum during birth and perinatal mental health problems, as well as quicker postpartum recovery.
While pregnant women might more often gravitate towards a brisk walk, some laps in the pool, or a group exercise class, dancing is a good option too. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has even listed dance as one of the forms of exercise found to be safe and beneficial during pregnancy.
The movements of dance involve the hips and pelvic area (especially twerking) which may help the baby get into a more optimal position and tone the pelvic floor, though the evidence for this is lacking.
Choose any form of dancing you like – even belly dancing. In a small qualitative study with two pregnant women, belly dancing was found to be joyful and empowering, boosting feelings of wellbeing.
You can dance any time during pregnancy but you may need to adapt your dance moves as the pregnancy advances and your growing belly gets in the way.
If you have risk factors such as bleeding it’s best to be cautious and discuss any planned dancing with your health-care provider.
Exercise is recommended during pregnancy – so why not try dancing? sandsun/Shutterstock
What about dancing to induce labour, and during labour?
Meghan is not the first woman to report dancing to induce their labour, but this is all anecdotal. There’s no scientific evidence to show dancing is an effective way to bring on labour.
There is perhaps slightly more evidence suggesting benefits once labour has started.
Many women seek non-pharmacological options (not involving medications) during labour. Especially early in labour, dancing may decrease the intensity of pain and lead women to feel more satisfied and in control of their labour.
In one study, 60 women were randomly allocated to either dance during labour, or not. The dancing group had significantly lower pain scores and higher satisfaction than the control group.
And again, music can lower levels of pain in early labour. So combining relaxing music with some movement could be a good thing.
Dancing to your comfort levels during labour could be helpful due to the combination of pelvic movements, being upright, moving the body rhythmically and changing the position of the body frequently.
Being upright and moving could also help transfer some pressure from the baby’s head onto the cervix, which can stimulate prostaglandin, a key chemical involved in progressing labour.
It’s been suggested dancing during labour could help get the baby into a better position for delivery and therefore help labour to proceed more smoothly and quickly. But ultimately we don’t have reliable evidence to substantiate these hypotheses.
So, did Meghan induce her labour with dance?
It’s unclear if dancing helped to induce the duchess’ labour as she was in hospital and may have later had a medical or surgical induction.
Labour can be medically induced with hormones, by using a balloon-shaped catheter placed in the woman’s cervix to open it up, or by breaking the bag of water around the baby.
Alternatively, Meghan’s labour may have eventually begun naturally without her dancing having played a role if she chose to wait another few days.
However, the joy on her face and connection and support of her husband Prince Harry is a good way to increase oxytocin, a hormone that stimulates contractions. This could have helped too.
Meghan may have been on the right track, but we need more research before we can confidently recommend dancing to bring on or during labour.
In the meantime, while there’s no evidence to show dancing is effective for inducing labour, it’s highly unlikely to have any downsides – and it may contribute to a more positive childbirth experience. So, if you feel inclined, I say dance away.
Hannah Dahlen receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.
While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.
Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.
So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?
Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?
Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.
This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.
These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.
However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.
Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.
That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.
Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.
The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:
If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.
Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.
Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?
Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.
For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.
Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.
These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.
Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.
In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.
These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.
It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.
However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.
Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.
However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.
Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.
China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.
Ali Mamouri 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.
Yesterday’s announcement that the five-yearly national census would be scrapped has raised difficult questions about the effectiveness, ethics and resourcing of the new “administrative” system that will replace it.
An administrative census will use information collected in day-to-day government activities, such as emergency-room admission forms, overseas travel declarations and marriage licences.
The move is not necessarily bad in principle, especially given the rising cost of the census and declining participation rates. But to make it effective and robust it must be properly resourced. And it must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi), as set out in the Data and Statistics Act.
The transformation process so far leaves considerable room for doubt that these things will happen. In particular, there are major ethical and Māori data sovereignty issues at stake.
As Te Mana Raraunga (the Māori Data Sovereignty Network) advocates, data is a living taonga (treasure), is of strategic value to Māori, and should be subject to Māori governance. Changes to census methods risk compromising these values – and undermining public trust in the official statistics system in general.
Because the new system takes census data gathering out of the hands of individual citizens and households, it also raises questions about state surveillance and social licence.
Surveillance and social licence
Surveillance means more than police stakeouts or phone-tapping. The state constantly collects and uses many kinds of data about us and our movements.
For more than a decade, the Integrated Data Infrastructure has been the government’s tool to patch gaps in its own data ecosystems.
This administrative data is collected without our direct and informed consent, and there is no real way to opt out. The safeguard is that information about individuals is “de-identified” once it enters the Integrated Data Infrastructure – no names, just data points.
Stats NZ, which administers the system, says it has the social licence to collect, cross-reference and use this administrative data. But genuine social licence requires that people understand and accept how their data is being used.
Stats NZ’s own research shows only around one in four people surveyed have enough knowledge about its activities to make an informed judgement.
The risks associated with this form of surveillance are amplified for Māori because of their particular historical experience with data and surveillance. The Crown used data collection and monitoring systems to dispossess land and suppress cultural practices, which continue to disproportionately affect Māori communities today.
Meaningful work to address this has taken place under the Mana Ōrite agreement, a partnership between Stats NZ and the Data Iwi Leaders Group (part of the National Iwi Chairs Forum). The agreement aims to solidify iwi authority over their own data and ensure Māori perspectives are heard in decision-making around data and statistics.
Data and a distorted picture of Māori
On the face of it, repurposing administrative data seems like a realistic solution to the census budget blowout. But there are questions about whether the data and methods used in an administrative census will be robust and of high quality. This has implications for policy and for communities.
Administrative data in its current form is limited in many ways. In particular, it misses what is actually important to Māori communities, and what makes life meaningful to them.
Administrative data often only measures problems. It is collected on Māori at their most vulnerable – when they’re in crisis, sick or struggling – which creates a distorted picture. In contrast, Te Kupenga (a survey by Stats NZ last run in 2018) included information by Māori and from a Māori cultural perspective that reflected lived realities.
Before increasing reliance on administrative data, greater engagement with Māori will be needed to ensure a data system that gathers and provides reliable, quality data. It is especially important for smaller hapori Māori (Māori communities), which need the data to make decisions for their members.
Stats NZ plans to partly fill the data void left by removing the traditional census with regular surveys. But the small sample size of surveys often makes it impossible to obtain reliable information on smaller groups, such as takatāpui (Māori of diverse gender and sexualities) or specific hapū or iwi groups.
It is not clear the implications of this have been fully been worked through in the census change process. Nor is it clear whether the recommendations from Stats NZ’s Future Census Independent External Review Panel – from Māori and a range of experts – have been fully considered.
This included crucial recommendations around commissioning an independent analysis informed by te Tiriti principles, meaningful engagement with iwi-Māori, and the continuing implementation of a Māori data governance model developed by Māori data experts.
We are not opposed to updating the way in which census data is collected. But for the new approach to be just, ethical and legal will require it to adhere to te Tiriti o Waitangi and the relationship established in the Mana Ōrite agreement.
Lara Greaves receives funding from the Royal Society of NZ, MBIE, and Horizon Europe. Lara is affiliated with Te Mana Raraunga-Māori Data Sovereignty Network.
Ella Pēpi Tarapa-Dewes is affiliated with Te Mana Raraunga-Māori Data Sovereignty Network.
Kiri West receives funding from Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga. She is affiliated with Te Mana Raraunga-Māori Data Sovereignty Network.
Larissa Renfrew is affiliated with Te Mana Raraunga-Māori Data Sovereignty Network.
Wolfram Steinberg/picture alliance via Getty Images
Millions of birds are killed by power lines each year. Sometimes they collide with the lines when flying and are either electrocuted or fatally injured. Other times they are electrocuted when perching on power poles.
Power line collisions are one of the leading causes of injury and death for large birds of prey. In Tasmania, an endangered population of wedge-tailed eagles lost 110 individuals to power lines between 2017 and 2023.
New research I led, the first of its kind in Australia, used GPS tracking data to predict which power lines were most dangerous for these eagles.
We hope the findings will help protect birds and other wildlife from overhead wires as electricity networks expand.
Energy companies can reduce the risks through various measures. They include attaching objects to power lines to make them more visible to birds, and redesigning poles to reduce the likelihood of electrocution.
But these solutions can be expensive, and challenging to implement on a large scale. So, prioritising the riskiest power lines is the most cost-effective solution.
The presence of bird carcasses has traditionally been used as a way to identify high-risk power lines. But this approach can give a biased picture, because people are more likely to find dead birds in accessible, less vegetated areas.
New research by my colleagues and I explores a different approach.
Tracking Tasmania’s wedgies
We used GPS tracking of animal movements to predict which power lines were most dangerous for Tasmania’s wedge-tailed eagles.
GPS tracking can record a bird’s location, altitude and speed – as frequently as every few seconds. This detailed information can show how birds behave around power lines, helping identify when and where they’re most at risk.
In 2017, my colleagues and I attached lightweight GPS trackers to 23 Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles, then analysed six years of tracking data. We identified more than 9,400 power line crossings at risky altitudes.
We then linked these crossings to different landscape features. This allowed us to build a model predicting where eagles are most likely to cross power lines at dangerous heights across Tasmania.
Power line crossings were most likely at or near open land, forest edges, rural residential developments, wet forest and freshwater sources. Risky crossings peaked in autumn and winter.
Almost half of known collisions occurred on the 20% of Tasmania’s power line network with the highest risk.
Importantly, we tested our predictions against locations where eagles had collided with power lines. The model accurately predicted many of these collision sites, confirming that areas with more low-flying eagle activity carry a greater risk of collisions.
This means our model can not only pick up on known hotspots, but can reveal risky areas that would be missed if carcass records were used exclusively to identify risk. It also means dangerous power lines can be identified before birds have died.
GPS information can show how birds behave around power lines. Julian Stratenschulte/picture alliance via Getty Images
A powerful new tool
Our research is part of a growing number of studies examining animal movement to improve wildlife management.
Risky animal behaviours have been monitored using GPS trackers and then used to inform models predicting the risk of wildlife interactions with road vehicles, wind turbines and aircraft.
Like ours, these studies can help guide where devices should be attached to lines and inform where new lines are built.
GPS tracking data offers a powerful tool to guide the sustainable design of power lines, target mitigation efforts, and make our expanding energy infrastructure safer for wildlife.
James Pay receives funding from the Australian Research Council (LP210200539), NRM South, Woolnorth Renewables, TasNetworks, the Bookend Trust, New Forests, Norske Skog, ACEN Renewables, Ark Energy and Goldwind Australia.
The South Australian parliament today passed a new law to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity.
It brings together native vegetation management, protection for native species and habitat, and conservation on private land. When introducing the bill to the Parliament, Deputy Premier Susan Close said:
Just as South Australia has led the way on climate action, committing to net zero emissions by 2050, we must now take the same ambitious approach to biodiversity. (This) crucial piece of legislation … will modernise and strengthen protections for South Australia’s biodiversity to benefit us and our future generations.
SA is not the first state to revise its nature laws. But this is the first environment law in years to be drafted from scratch in Australia. Rather than waiting for federal reform, SA has leapfrogged the protracted process. This new legislation achieves some things no Australian law has done before.
National environment law reform has stalled
This all comes at a time when the federal law reform is up in the air.
The Albanese government failed to pass new national environment laws during its first term.
Environment protection even went backwards just before the election. The rushed amendments limited powers to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.
In the meantime, state and territory governments are forging ahead.
Time for states and territories to lead?
The last state to write a new nature law was New South Wales, in 2016. But a scathing 2023 review of the law recommended a major overhaul.
The NSW government committed to most of the recommendations, announcing big plans for nature law reforms in July last year. These plans include strengthening land-clearing codes, improving species protections and monitoring, and preparing a new “nature positive” strategy.
So far, the NSW government has only managed to pass legislation to fix problems with biodiversity offsets. Offset schemes allow developers to compensate for their destruction of vital habitat with gains elsewhere.
In Victoria, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 was amended in 2019. These reforms inserted new principles around how the Act should be implemented, and a new approach to crucial habitat. The reforms also emphasised the need to improve species’ survival and adaptation to climate and environmental change.
The Nature Conservation Act and strategy in the ACT are also due for review. Early consultation concluded in July 2024. A revised Act is likely to be released later this year.
Does Australia really need two layers of environment laws?
The short answer is yes, Australia needs both state and federal environment laws. But the interactions between the two could be managed better.
The Australian Constitution doesn’t give the federal government explicit authority to make laws about the environment. That’s left to the states and territories, which means they make most laws about threatened species, waterways, native vegetation and protected areas.
The federal government has an overarching responsibility to protect environments that are important to all of us, in national laws. We call these “matters of national environmental significance”.
Some matters are significant because they involve Australia’s promises to the rest of the world. Australia has international obligations to protect world heritage areas and internationally significant wetlands, for example.
Other matters cross state borders. The orange-bellied parrot, for instance, migrates across three states to find food and nesting sites.
Individual states and territories do not have sufficient resources or the national perspective needed to protect these species and places.
Why do the South Australian reforms matter?
SA’s new Biodiversity Act does some things no Australian law has done before.
For example, it looks beyond species and ecosystems, offering protection to so-called “ecological entities”. Regulations will be needed to define what an ecological entity is. But the concept may protect refuges where species shelter from extreme events. It might also offer a new way to protect important landscape features such as coastal dunes.
Another new concept is “culturally significant biodiversity entities”. The Act defines a culturally significant biodiversity entity as:
a native species or ecological community
with cultural value to some or all Aboriginal people
which is critical to Aboriginal peoples’ relationships with and adaptation to Country.
The Act also sets up a new Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee. That committee will co-develop policies with the minister. One of these policies will explain how culturally significant biodiversity entities will be identified and managed.
Other policies will be developed in collaboration with the Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee. These include policies to guide cultural burning of native plants, or to consider and apply Aboriginal knowledge. At long last, Aboriginal people will have a “seat at the table”.
SA becomes the third state (after NSW and Victoria) to mention climate change in its nature law. This is an important reform. Laws are needed to help nature survive more frequent and severe droughts, floods and fires.
Environmental scientist and polar explorer Tim Jarvis on biodiversity (Department for Environment and Water)
All hands on deck
Australian environments are extraordinary, diverse and ancient. But Australia has long been an extinction hotspot. The continent’s ecosystems remain under serious pressure.
Our environment laws must be clear and avoid complex clashes or gaps between national and state responsibilities. But SA, NSW, Victoria and soon the ACT show law reform can also be more ambitious. Nature laws can truly help the environment to flourish even as the climate changes.
Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub and the Centre for Marine Socioecology.
Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.
WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.
It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.
But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.
3 billion users
WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.
It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.
Advanced cyber capability
The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.
But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.
Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.
Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.
A historical precedent
Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.
Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.
These kinds of attacks often use “spearphishing”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.
Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.
A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.
Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’
To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.
Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.
Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.
David Tuffley 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.
Israel’s major military operation against Iran has targeted its nuclear program, including its facilities and scientists, as well as its military leadership.
In response, the United Nations Security Council has quickly convened an emergency sitting. There, the Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon defended Israel’s actions as a “preventative strike” carried out with “precision, purpose, and the most advanced intelligence”. It aimed, he said, to:
dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, eliminate the architects of its terror and aggression and neutralise the regime’s ability to follow through on its repeated public promise to destroy the state of Israel.
So, what does international law say about self-defence? And were Israel’s actions illegal under international law?
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There are only two exceptions:
when the UN Security Council authorises force, and
when a state acts in self-defence.
This “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”, as article 51 of the UN charter puts it, persists until the Security Council acts to restore international peace and security.
So what’s ‘self-defence’ actually mean?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has consistently interpreted self-defence narrowly.
In manycases, it has rejected arguments from states such as the United States, Uganda and Israel that have sought to promote a more expansive interpretation of self-defence.
The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point. The UN Security Council affirmed in resolutions 1368 and 1373 that the right to self-defence extends to defending against attacks by non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. The US, invoking this right, launched its military action in Afghanistan.
The classic understanding of self-defence – that it’s justified when a state responds reactively to an actual, armed attack – was regarded as being too restrictive in the age of missiles, cyberattacks and terrorism.
This helped give rise to the idea of using force before an imminent attack, in anticipatory self-defence.
The threshold for anticipatory self-defence is widely seen by scholars as high. It requires what’s known as “imminence”. In other words, this is the “last possible window of opportunity” to act to stop an unavoidable attack.
As set out by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2005:
as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate, this would meet the accepted interpretation of self defence under article 51.
As international law expert Donald Rothwell points out, the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defence hinges on factual scrutiny and strict criteria, balancing urgency, legality and accountability.
This argued new threats – such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction – justified using force to forestall attacks before they occurred.
Critics, including Annan, warned that if the notion of preventive self-defence was widely accepted, it would undermine the prohibition on the use of force. It would basically allow states to act unilaterally on speculative intelligence.
if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorise such action if it chooses to.
If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment – and to visit again the military option.
This is exactly what Israel has failed to do before attacking Iran.
Lessons from history
Israel’s stated goal was to damage Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon that could be used against it.
This is explicitly about preventing an alleged, threatened, future attack by Iran with a nuclear weapon that, according to all publicly available information, Iran does not currently possess.
This is not the first time Israel has advanced a broad interpretation of self-defence.
As international law stands, unless an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable, such strikes are likely to be considered unlawful uses of force.
While there is still time and opportunity to use non-forcible means to prevent the threatened attack, there’s no necessity to act now in self defence.
Diplomatic engagement, sanction, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program – such as through the International Atomic Energy Agency – remain the lawful means of addressing the emerging threat posed by Tehran.
Preserving the rule of law
The right to self-defence is not a blank cheque.
Anticipatory self-defence remains legally unsettled and highly contested.
So were Israel’s attacks on Iran a legitimate use of “self-defence”? I would argue no.
I concur with international law expert Marko Milanovic that Israel’s claim to be acting in preventive self-defence must be rejected on the facts available to us.
In a volatile world, preserving these legal limits is essential to avoiding unchecked aggression and preserving the rule of law.
Shannon Bosch 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.
It’s been 50 years since Steven Spielberg’s movie Jaws first cast a terrifying shadow across our screens.
At a low point during production, Spielberg worried he’d only ever be known for “a big fish story”. The film, however, did not tank.
Jaws broke box office records and became the highest-grossing movie at the time, only surpassed by the first Star Wars released two years later in 1977.
A combination of mass advertising, familiar “hero” tropes and old-school showmanship launched Jaws as the first modern blockbuster.
Hollywood, and our relationship to oceans and the sharks within them, would never be the same.
In Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel that Jaws is based on, the shark is 6 metres long. For added screen excitement, in the movie it grew to a whopping 7.6 metres.
However, that’s unrealistically large.
The average size of a mature great white (Carcharodon carcharias, also known as the white shark) is between 4.6 and 4.9 metres for female sharks and up to 4 metres for male sharks.
The largest recorded living specimens peak at about 6 metres, with one monster specimen caught in Cuba in 1945 reaching 6.4 metres.
Earth’s oceans have seen bigger predatory sharks in the past. The biggest one of all time was the megalodon (Otodus megalodon) which lived from 23 to 3 million years ago, and may have been up to 24 metres in length. However, it looked nothing like the modern white shark.
But white sharks are not directly related to the megalodon, whose lineage began with a shark called Cretalamna during the age of dinosaurs about 100 million years ago.
By contrast, the white shark lineage began with an ancient mako shark, Carcharodon hastalis. It was 7 to 8 metres long and had large, similarly shaped teeth to the modern white shark but lacking serrated edges.
A fossil intermediate species, Carcharodon hubbelli shows the transition over time from weakly serrated to strongly serrated teeth.
White shark fossil species. Left, the serrated fossil tooth teeth of the extant white shark; right, a similarly shaped unserrated tooth of the extinct giant mako shark which gave rise to white sharks. John Long, CC BY
How did Jaws affect white shark populations?
Last year, the International Shark Attack File reported 47 unprovoked shark bites to humans worldwide, resulting in seven fatalities. This was well below the previous ten-year average of 70 bites per year; your chances of getting bitten by a shark are extremely rare.
Following the movies that made up the Jaws franchise, there was an increase in hunting and killing sharks – with a particular focus on great white sharks that were already going into a decline due to overfishing, trophy hunting and lethal control programs.
When Jaws first aired, scientists didn’t know how long sharks took to reproduce, or how many offspring a white shark could have each year. We now know it takes about 26 years for a male and 33 years for a female to sexually mature before they can start having pups.
Now that we know just how slow they are to breed, it’s clear it will take many decades to reestablish the “pre-Jaws” population of white sharks – important apex predators in the marine ecosystem.
Charlie Huveneers from Flinders University about to take a tissue sample for research on white sharks. There is still a lot we don’t know about their biology. Andrew Fox, Adelaide, CC BY
This classification means if we don’t change the current living conditions for white sharks, including impacts caused by human activities such as commercial fishing, and the impacts of climate change and ocean pollution, they will continue to decline and eventually could go extinct.
Currently, white sharks are protected in several countries and form the basis for an important tourist industry in Australia, South Africa, western United States and most recently Nova Scotia, Canada.
These sharks are iconic apex predators that fascinate people. One of us (John) went cage diving with them recently off the Neptune Islands of South Australia and can attest to how breathtaking it is to watch them in their natural environment.
In terms of economic impact, they are worth far more alive than dead.
White sharks are a growing tourism draw in several countries. Andrew Fox, Adelaide, CC BY
There’s still much we don’t know about white sharks
The complete white shark genome was first published only in 2019. It has 4.63 billion base pairs, making it much larger than the human genome (3.2 billion base pairs).
The genome revealed some surprising things, like how white sharks show strong molecular adaptations for wound-healing processes, and a suite of “genome stability” genes – those used in DNA repair or DNA damage response.
The transcriptome (or sum total of the messenger RNA) of the white shark showed greater similarity to the human transcriptome than to that of other fishes. This hints that “unexpressed genes” in the shark could one day play a role in uncovering genetic pathways for potential cures in human diseases.
Jaws and its sequels certainly brought white sharks to the attention (and nightmares) of humans, with devastating impacts on how we treated them as a species.
Our relationship with white sharks reflects our relationship with nature more broadly – a feared antagonist within the current capitalist paradigm; an enemy to be tamed, contained or consumed.
As we learn more of the peril and potential of these remarkable creatures, we can learn how to live with them, to see beyond our fears and value their role within our delicate ocean ecosystems.
John Long receives funding from The Australian Research Council.
Heather L. Robinson 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.
