Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller administers the oath of office to William McKinley during his presidential inauguration in 1897, as outgoing President Grover Cleveland looks on.AP Photo/Library of Congress
More than five months after President Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost the election and the Senate majority – and how the party can regroup.
These concerns have only increased in the wake of Trump’s sustained activity at the start of his second term. The American public has witnessed a Democratic Party struggling to craft a coherent strategy.
As a political scientist focused on electoral politics, I believe the Gilded Age provides a warning for the Democrats’ current situation, as the party’s internal struggles hampered its ability to wage successful national campaigns.
The party period
Scholars of U.S. political history often refer to the bulk of the 19th century as the party period due to the degree to which party politics permeated society. Parties framed political discourse through the creation of “brands” centered on distinct ideologies.
These ideologies offered coherent ideas of what it meant to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Democrats opposed a strong national government in favor of states’ rights. They resisted vesting too much economic authority in the national government. And they used their states’ rights position to justify human enslavement and racially discriminatory policies.
Republicans embraced national authority over states’ rights. It was a vision centered on a national political economy that fostered manufacturing and industrialization. This economic approach was accompanied at times by opposition to immigration in often nativist and racist rhetoric.
The Gilded Age
The Gilded Age has been compared with the present. That’s due, in part, to the period’s rapid industrialization, increased immigration and prominent debates over economic policy.
And like today, these Gilded Age years, roughly from 1870 to 1900, witnessed intense competition between Democrats and Republicans, during which only about seven states were contested in any given election due to the regional basis of support for each party.
The 1880s and 1890s were characterized by debates over economic policies, primarily the protective tariff. That tariff was supported by Northern industrialists to protect domestic industry and opposed by Southern agrarians. The U.S. monetary standard, which determines how value is measured, also dominated discussions.
The 1888 election revealed tensions among Democrats, primarily over the tariff, that became a harbinger of the party’s struggles in 1896. The party’s inability to reconcile competing constituencies in its coalition and offer a coherent message on the tariff ultimately cost them the White House.
After winning reelection in 1892, Democrat Cleveland faced an economic depression that impeded the goals of his second term. The Democrats lost both chambers of Congress in the ensuing midterm election.
The battle over the monetary standard consumed the 1896 election.
From the 1870s-1890s, debates over whether greenbacks, or paper currency, should be redeemable in gold or silver ebbed and flowed.
Republicans, buoyed by wealthy financiers, tended to support maintaining the gold standard only. Democrats, who courted laborers and farmers, usually supported the increased circulation of greenbacks redeemable in both gold and silver.
The economic depression in 1893 heightened tensions on this issue, as many Americans sought to pay off their debts with cheaper currency.
At their national convention, Democrats adopted the pro-silver position and nominated a populist firebrand for president, William Jennings Bryan.
Republicans also faced internal divisions on the issue. But, as in 1888, they were able to overcome these tensions to maintain their coalition and supported the gold standard in their platform.
The Republican candidate, William McKinley, defeated Bryan. The outcome solidified Republican primacy for 30 years.
William Jennings Bryan campaigns in 1896. AP Photo
The legacy of 1896
Internal strife in the late 19th century hindered Democrats’ ability to advance a unified voice, mobilize their voters and attract new ones. In 1888 and 1896, these divisions harmed Democrats’ electoral prospects. Their organizational problems and intense internal discord proved too much for Bryan to overcome.
Scholar James Reichley contends that the Republicans’ more effective organizing after Reconstruction may have resulted in a coherent message compared with the Democrats.
And a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democratic voters contributed to Republican success in 1894 and 1896, according to historian Richard White. Republicans mobilized their base and attracted new voters, while Democrats did not.
These elections solidified voter alignments until 1932.
Although Democrat Woodrow Wilson held the presidency from 1913 to 1921, Republicans dictated national policy and controlled Congress for most of those years. It took a massive economic depression to return the Democrats to the majority on the national level.
Adam M. Silver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In some parts of the world, a person may be secreted away or imprisoned by the government without any advanced notification of wrongdoing or chance to make a defense. This has not been lawful in the United States from its very inception, or in many other countries where the rule of law and respect for individual civil rights are paramount.
In an April 7, 2025, decision in a habeas corpus case brought by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union representing Venezuelans who faced deportation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government must give those it aims to deport the opportunity to legally challenge their removal from the U.S. This chance for due process when deprived of liberty is what habeas corpus is and does.
The Magna Carta itself was, as the U.K. parliament describes it, “the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.”
Although the writ originally was a means of enforcing the king’s power over his subjects, as noted by the Supreme Court in reviewing the writ’s long history, English judges over time issued habeas corpus “to enforce the King’s prerogative to inquire into the authority of a jailer to hold a prisoner.”
The idea crossed the ocean to play an important part in the formation of the U.S. constitutional form of democracy. As the Supreme Court emphasized in a 2008 case holding that the habeas corpus privilege existed even for “aliens” designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay: “Protection for the privilege of habeas corpus was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights.”
In the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which created lower federal courts following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress gave immediate power to the federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief.
States and some tribes also have their own habeas corpus statutes. Congress also extended habeas to allow federal challenges to detention by tribal officials via the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made many of the constitutional rights held by individuals applicable to official action by federally recognized Native American tribes. In fact, habeas corpus is the sole remedy under the Indian Civil Rights Act for challenging any of the enumerated rights in that act.
When is habeas corpus used?
The principal use of habeas corpus, historically and in more modern times, has been “to seek release of persons held in actual, physical custody in prison or jail,” as Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1962 Supreme Court opinion.
Its scope extends well beyond imprisonment, however. Habeas has been the vehicle for challenging interference with child custodial rights, involuntary commitment to inpatient treatment or psychiatric care, military induction, restrictive conditions of pretrial release, probation or parole, and banishment from tribal lands, to name a few examples.
Besides securing the physical release of imprisoned persons, habeas corpus may result in dismissal of criminal charges, new trials or appeals, the appointment of legal counsel, and court orders directing remediation of cruel or inhumane conditions of confinement.
The idea that no person shall be deprived unjustly of liberty formally dates back to the 39th Clause of this document, the Magna Carta, signed by England’s King John in 1215. The National Archives
Critical safeguard of liberty
Detained individuals have been blocked from using habeas corpus less than a handful of times in American history.
In the words of the Constitution’s Article I, which governs congressional power: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
For example, it was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War; in Hawaii after the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor; during rebellions in 11 South Carolina counties overtaken by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction in the years just after the Civil War; and in certain provinces of the U.S.-controlled Philippines in 1905.
Significantly, however, habeas relief has remained vital to challenges to presidential orders and congressional enactments even during times of war and other national security concerns.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of using habeas corpus in many efforts to suspend or limit the writ in cases stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order authorizing the indefinite detention of noncitizens suspected of being connected to terrorism. Under that order, Yaser Hamdi, who was an American citizen, was detained in U.S. military facilities without being charged, without legal counsel or the possibility of court hearings after being accused of fighting for the Taliban against the United States.
In a 2004 ruling on Hamdi’s case against the government, the Supreme Court upheld the right of every American citizen to use habeas corpus, even when declared to be an enemy combatant.
In the 2004 landmark case of Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court reaffirmed limits on when habeas corpus can be suspended – and when it cannot. The justices said that even foreign detainees captured in countries around the world and brought to Guantanamo Bay on suspected ties to terrorism had the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
Habeas corpus is a critical safeguard of liberty. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in the seminal 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, the “very essence” of civil liberty is “the right to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.”
Andrea Seielstad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shiva S. Mohan, Research Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program, Toronto Metropolitan University
Migrant workers have long been recognized as essential to Canada’s economy. But that recognition rarely translates into meaningful inclusion. As Canada embarks on new immigration reforms, persistent inequalities continue to define who truly belongs, and who remains excluded.
Although framed as a recognition of essential labour, the new program highlights a deeper reality: Canada’s immigration reforms continue to prioritize business and industry needs. In this instance, those needs are in housing and construction.
This selective approach reveals deeper patterns in Canada’s immigration system, often described as a hierarchy of deservingness. This framework assigns greater value to certain types of labour, while sidelining others. This sidelining is often based on race, gender and class and limits access to recognition and rights for all essential workers.
With a federal election on the horizon, the construction worker pathway is as much a political move as a policy reform.
The program expands on a pilot that granted permanent residence to approximately 1,365 people and their families in the Greater Toronto Area before closing in December 2024.
The current national rollout of the program reflects public and industry pressure to address Canada’s housing crisis. Housing has become a top priority for governments across the country.
Developers and industry groups, such as the Canadian Home Builders’ Association, have long lobbied for faster housing construction and more skilled trades workers. Their advocacy, combined with widespread concern over affordability, made it politically attractive to prioritize construction labour rather than implement broader regularization efforts.
But this approach exposes who is left out. Sectors like caregiving, domestic work and agriculture, largely dominated by racialized and feminized labour continue to be excluded from clear and inclusive pathways to status.
But these programs remain narrowly targeted, restricted and quickly capped, with application limits often reached on the same day they open. They also provide little relief for the many out-of-status caregivers already living and working in Canada.
Other countries have demonstrated that large-scale, inclusive reforms are possible, offering Canada a model to follow.
Spain’s 2005 regularization program successfully granted legal status to 700,000 people. The Spanish assessment recognized employment records, community ties and long-term residence. This model shows that broad, fair regularization strategies can balance administrative efficiency with political feasibility.
Meanwhile, Canada’s fragmented reforms exclude most out-of-status critical workers. And it leaves them without any sustainable pathway to status, prolonging their vulnerability and insecurity.
Canada urgently needs a transparent, fair and scaleable immigration strategy. It must be one that values people’s contributions, not just the immediate needs of businesses.
Cleaners, caregivers, farm labourers, food service workers and others deserve the same recognition and opportunity as those in construction.
A comprehensive regularization strategy would not only uphold dignity and fairness. It would also strengthen Canada’s economy, improve labour protections and promote social inclusion.
As Canadians prepare to head to the polls, the incoming government faces a critical choice.
It can continue with piecemeal, politically convenient reforms that leave most out-of-status workers behind. Or it can commit to a broad, rights-based regularization strategy that recognizes the full social fabric of those who sustain this country.
Shiva S. Mohan 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 – Canada – By Trevor Swerdfager, Practitioner-In-Residence, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, University of Waterloo
Canada’s biodiversity is in decline. Globally, climate change, urbanization, overexploitation of resources and habitat loss are combining to drive biodiversity loss across all ecosystems.
Laws matter. They codify societal values and priorities, define acceptable behaviours and establish the government programs and institutions needed to tackle complex problems. Canadian biodiversity law is neither meeting today’s challenges nor positioning us for the future.
Over the years, important additions to these acts include habitat and sustainability provisions to the Fisheries Act in 1977 and 2019 respectively, and a 2011 amendment to the CNPA, requiring that National Parks be managed to ensure their “ecological integrity.”
Nevertheless, several of the laws are pre-date the Second World War and all pre-date the internet, climate change and current biodiversity science.
Whooping cranes are considered endangered, and are protected under the Species at Risk Act. (Shutterstock)
Disconnected approach
Canadian biodiversity laws evolved through multiple unconnected legislative events over 150 years. They legislatively fragment the environment into separate components and fracture accountability into multiple agencies. They entrench program silos fostering conflicting departmental priorities and operational inefficiencies.
They establish no biodiversity goals, reporting mechanisms or mandates for biodiversity science. Their structures impedes public data sharing and transparency, dissuades Indigenous engagement and consistently sparks federal-provincial tensions.
Nothing on the horizon suggests that these shortcomings will be addressed through new leadership, new policy or plain old good luck. On the contrary, these laws seem destined to yield the same sub-optimal outcomes.
The Jefferson salamander is listed as endangered by both federal and provincial legislation. (iNaturalist/evangrimes), CC BY
Meeting the challenge
If we are to meet current and future biodiversity conservation challenges, we must develop a new legislative approach. This approach should support the creation of modern biodiversity programs and institutions and drive integrated, transparent and inclusive decision-making.
Our work suggests that we need a single unified law for biodiversity: a Canadian Biodiversity Conservation and Protection Act (CBCPA). A new act of this kind would replace the existing nine laws and could usefully include:
Principles requiring — not just encouraging — nature-positive programs emphasizing biodiversity, science, ecosystems, transparency, accountability and inclusivity.
Mandated biodiversity target and objective setting, including those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. This should also include reporting measures that offer actionable insights into program effectiveness and delivery improvement opportunities.
Requirements for the use and public documentation of science in decision-making, including the requirement that all government biodiversity data should be made available to the public.
Establishment of governance arrangements embracing Indigenous rights and interests, as well as mechanisms to bring conservation communities together around collective actions, facilitated by a new Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
Creation of a Biodiversity Conservation Agency to fuse the existing four agencies into one, and establish clear ministerial accountability and a stronger voice for biodiversity in Cabinet.
Operational elements governing the establishment and operation of protected areas, the management of fish and migratory birds, and the protection and recovery of species at risk in a cohesive and mutually reinforcing manner.
A CBCPA would dramatically improve policy and regulatory certainty for industry. It would drive program cohesion and efficiency, build trust in government decision-making and facilitate intra- and inter-governmental collaboration. It would remove key obstacles to biodiversity conservation success and create the societal conditions so urgently needed to reverse biodiversity decline in Canada.
This would obviously be an ambitious legislative project replete with substantive policy and political challenges. But the importance of biodiversity to Canada’s ecological, economic and social well-being is difficult to overstate. Maintaining the legislative status quo or adopting minimalist incrementalism is unwise.
As we transform our economic and trade systems in Canada to grapple with climate change, a fundamental shift in how we conserve and protect biodiversity is equally vital. This is a time for ambition, not apathy.
Derek Armitage has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Trevor Swerdfager 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.
Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale.
Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.
Bergoglio defied his mother’s wish for him to become a medical doctor and chose instead to pursue priesthood, a calling he felt during confession. The young man joined the Jesuits in the 1950s, attracted to the order’s vow of poverty and its ethos of serving others and living simply.
He became a priest in 1969, Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, and took on the papacy in 2013. As Pope Francis, his dedication to social justice was deeply rooted in the Latin American context.
The region’s history of inequality, poverty and political upheaval greatly influenced his perspective.
The young Argentinian priest
Bergoglio, a devoted supporter of the San Lorenzo soccer team, was also a confident tango dancer, mate drinker, and an unconditional admirer of his compatriot, Jorge Luis Borges, one of the most influential writers of the 20th century.
In 1965, the two men collaborated on the publication of short stories written by Bergoglio’s literature students. The students had been inspired by a seminar led by Borges, organised by the young priest.
Borges thought highly of Bergoglio, finding him charming and intelligent. For Borges, Bergoglio was a Jesuit through and through, noting the clerics of that order had been historically transgressive as well as possessors of a good sense of humour.
While Borges never saw him transformed into Pope Francis, his observations somehow fit with the respect Bergoglio earned as a global leader.
Theology of the people
As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived modestly, often taking public transport and dedicating himself to the poor and disenfranchised. He personally attended the needs of underprivileged neighbourhoods known as villas miseria (literally “misery towns”) in Argentine Spanish.
He was a vocal opponent to economic inequality. During the 2001 Argentine economic crisis he advocated for the rights and dignity of impoverished citizens.
Pope Francis hails from a region deeply influenced by the progressive movements of Catholic priests and nuns, who were significantly inspired by liberation theology during the 1960s in Latin America.
Liberation theology developed in Latin America during the latter part of the 20th century, as a reaction to significant political and theological transformations in the area. It believed in political liberation for the oppressed, inspired by the Cuban Revolution and Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, both in 1959.
While Francis did not fully subscribe to the tenets of liberation theology, much of his dedication to social justice aligns with its ideals. Pope Francis’ social awareness was deeply shaped by the “theology of the people”.
Distinct to Argentina, and emerging in the 1960s, the theology of the people shared liberation theology’s focus on social justice, but is devoid of Marxist ideology, and emphasises the dignity and agency of the marginalised and the impoverished.
During Argentina’s dictatorial regime from 1976–83, Bergoglio led the Jesuits. But he did not adopt the highly dangerous stance of full opposition typical among liberation theologians elsewhere in Argentina and other parts of Latin America.
Commenting on Latin American affairs
In his early years as the Pope, he resonated with progressive Catholics across Latin America, because of his grounding in Argentinian theology and his focus on social justice. But in recent years, his popularity in some Latin American countries declined.
In Argentina, this dip in enthusiasm is partly attributed to his decision not to visit, despite travelling to neighbouring nations.
More profoundly, the decline likely stems from his fixed stance against contentious issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. To the disappointment of many Argentines and other Latin American citizens, he refused to compromise.
Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis received all Argentine presidents – even those who were previously critical of him, such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
He maintained a strong connection to his Buenos Aires roots and remained engaged with Argentina’s social and political landscape, often commenting on situations that provoke strong reactions from politicians.
He was a critic of policies instituted by the current President of Argentina, Javier Milei, particularly Milei’s libertarian model of economy and the government’s brutal response to public dissent and opposition. In September 2024, the Pope famously said:
the government put its foot down: instead of paying for social justice, it paid for pepper spray.
An alternative model of leadership
By reflecting on how Pope Francis’ theology is rooted in the Argentina he grew up in, we can better understand his actions as Pope.
He appointed clergymen from non-European countries, enhancing representation from Asia, Africa and Latin America and increased the participation of women within the Church’s leadership structures.
His landmark encyclical, Laudato Si’, underscored the moral imperative to address climate change, inspiring accolades from global leaders. His critique of Israel and the conflict in Gaza underscored his consistent opposition to war and advocacy for peace.
Despite existing tensions and contradictions within his papacy – particularly regarding the Church’s stance on LGBTQIA+ issues and women’s rights – Pope Francis’s approach to global issues remained steadfast and aligned with his core values, and the Buenos Aires he came of age in.
Francis’s leadership is a product of his upbringing and a catalyst for regional and global dialogue on social justice.
The profound influence of the Latin American region on him is well captured by long time friend, Uruguayan lawyer and activist, Guzman Carriquiry who described the Pope as:
Priest, and profoundly priest; Jesuit and profoundly Jesuit; Latin American, and profoundly Latin American.
Fernanda Peñaloza 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.
The day was still alive when a group of Abui people danced in a circle around the ‘maasang’ – the central altar of their village – alternating coordinated movements with rhythmic pauses. The drums were played, marking each step with their sounds, believed to connect the world of the gods with the world of humans.
They were performing the ‘lego-lego’ dance, an integral part of ancestral rituals. The dance was directed by the cadenced rhythm produced by the ‘Moko’ drums, distinctive musical instruments that are also prestigious heirlooms and sacred tools, mostly found in the Alor-Pantar archipelago, in East Nusa Tenggara.
Recently, with Shiyue Wu, my Research Assistant at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (Suzhou, Jiangsu, China), I developed and published research about the names of the ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs from Alor in three representative Papuan languages spoken in the island: Abui (Central Alor), Sawila (Eastern Alor), and Kula (Eastern Alor).
This research aims to increase our knowledge on the ‘Moko’ drums and their significance and sanctity for the cultural identity and heritage of the peoples living in the Alor-Pantar archipelago.
Among the many ancestral traditions and ritual objects attested in Southeastern Indonesia, the ‘Moko’ drums represent a unique blend of symbolic and religious values and practical functions in the social life of the local Papuan communities. Technically, they are bronze kettle-drums, specifically membranophones, instruments that produce their sounds by being hit on their vibrating skins, or membranes.
Despite their widespread use and cultural significance among indigenous communities in Alor, Pantar and beyond — like in Timor and among the Austronesian and Papuan groups of Flores —, the history and origins of these musical instruments are still relatively obscure and seem to fade into the mists of time.
The ‘bronze gongs’ from the Alor-Pantar archipelago vary in size and are typically round, flat metal discs played with a mallet. They are equivalent to the ‘Moko’ drums, at the level of musical and social functions.
The indigenous peoples believe that the drums and gongs have no local origins from the islands, but their possible place of production is unknown. We recently confirmed this through fieldwork conversations with our Abui local consultant.
‘Moko’ drums’ unique attributes
Each ‘Moko’ drum (and bronze gong) is characterised by physical (size, shape, and the produced sounds) and aesthetic (iconography and decorations) features, which make it unique. The uniqueness of the drums and gongs is strengthened by the fact that each type of these membranophones has an ‘individual’ name, which indicates a specific category, with its dedicated musical and iconographic attributes.
For example, there are ‘fiyaai futal’ (in Abui), the “candlenut-flower” drum, and ‘bileeqwea / bileeq-wea‘ (in Abui), the “lizard-blood” drum.
All the ethnic groups in Alor, Pantar and surrounding areas use their own local variants for the names of the different drums. This nomenclature reflects specific ritual and trading features of each musical instrument.
Despite this, the native speakers cannot explain the name ‘Moko’ in itself, with its etymological and semantic origins. They agree upon the likely foreign origin of the instruments, but no one can pinpoint a possible location for their production (some say Java, Makassar, India, Vietnam, or even China, but without any conclusive evidence) or the trade routes across which they were likely imported to the islands.
Some local myths and origin stories) tell about the unexpected discovery, by local people, of ‘Moko’ drums buried in the ground, adding a veil of mystery to their enigmatic roots. Being treasured items, the drums were actually buried under the ground by locals, to avoid the risk to fall into the hands of colonisers or to be taken away by outsiders.
The term ‘Moko’ is universally attested and used in everyday conversations by the Alor-Pantar speakers, independently of their languages and villages. However, nobody, among the locals, can explain the roots of the name or propose an interpretation for its possible meaning. The ‘Moko’ drums are, therefore, an unsolved puzzle in the context of the material culture and linguistic landscape of the Alor-Pantar archipelago.
It is possible that the name ‘Moko’ was coined ‘internally’, in Alor and Pantar, perhaps in the ‘Alor Malay’ language, which is commonly spoken in the archipelago since the 14th century. The denomination would have, then, spread towards external areas.
However, this hypothesis cannot be proven with incontrovertible evidence, and the direction of the naming process could have also been the opposite, from outside into Alor and Pantar.
Our paper presents systematic lists of the names of drums and gongs, with the original denominations in the three different above-mentioned languages, the related translations, name-by-name, synthetic notes on the possible origins of their nomenclature, a catalogue of the instruments by categories (based on fieldwork and direct observation), and a set of pictures reproducing a small selection of drums according to their cultural significance.
Beyond musical functions
The ‘Moko‘ drums are relatively ancient ritual objects commonly used, in the past, in generally pre-Christian worship ceremonies performed by the indigenous communities. The traditions survived until today, through local folklore and public celebrations.
The path towards a full understanding of the historical dynamics of the production and spread of the ‘Moko’ drums and gongs — as well as their provenance and the etymologies of their names — might still be long. However, this does not diminish their cultural and material significance among the Alor-Pantar peoples.
Despite their obscure origins, ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs are meticulously catalogued, described and rated by the local communities in the islands. Periodically, a multi-ethnic council gathers to assess, update and validate the different values and levels of social prestige and rarity of every single instrument.
This safeguarding effort, combined with the collection and systematisation of ‘first hand’ data, which we are currently developing, may considerably help in shedding light on the nature and origins of these enigmatic instruments.
Francesco Perono Cacciafoco received funding from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU): Research Development Fund (RDF) Grant, “Place Names and Cultural Identity: Toponyms and Their Diachronic Evolution among the Kula People from Alor Island”, Grant Number: RDF-23-01-014, School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou (Jiangsu), China, 2024-2025.
In recent weeks, Bougainville has taken the initiative, boldly stating that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027.
It also expects the PNG Parliament to quickly ratify the 2019 referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of Bougainvilleans supported independence.
In a third move, it established a Constitution Commission and included it within the region’s autonomous Parliament.
To learn more, RNZ Pacific spoke with Australian National University academic Dr Thiago Oppermann, who has spent many years in both Bougainville and PNG.
James Marape (second left) and Ishmael Toroama (right) during joint moderations talks in Port Moresby last month. Image: Autonomous Bougainville Government
Don Wiseman: We’ve had five-and-a-half years since the Bougainville referendum, but very suddenly in the last couple of months, it would seem that Bougainville is picking up pace and trying to really make some progress with this march towards independence, as they see it.
Are they overplaying their hand?
Dr Thiago Oppermann: I do not believe that they are overplaying their hand. I think that the impression that is apparent of a sudden flurry of activity, arises partly because for the first two years after the referendum, there was a very slow pace.
One of the shortcomings of the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA) was that it did not set out a very clear post-referendum path. That part of the process was not as well designed as the parts leading to the referendum, and that left a great deal of uncertainty as to how to structure negotiations, how things should be conducted, and quite substantial differences in the views of the Papua New Guinean government and the ABG (Autonomous Bougainville Government), as to how the referendum result would be processed further.
For instance, how it would it need to be tabled in Parliament, what kind of vote would be required for it, would a negotiation between the parties lead to an agreement that then is presented to the Parliament, and how would that negotiation work? All these areas, they were not prescriptive in the BPA.
That led to a period of a good two years in which there was very slow process and then attempts to get some some movement. I would say that in that period, the views of the Bougainvilleans and the Papua New Guineans became quite entrenched in quite different camps, and something I think would have to give eventually.
Why the Bougainvilleans have moved towards this point now, I think that it bears pointing out that there has been a long process that has been unfolding, for more than two years now, of beginning the organic process of developing a Bougainvillean constitutional process with this constitutional development committees across the island doing a lot of work, and that has now borne fruit, is how I would describe it.
It happens at a point where the process has been unblocked by the appointment of Sir Jerry Mataparae, which I think sets a new vigour into the process. It looks now like it’s heading towards some form of outcome. And that being the case, the Bougainvilleans have made their position quite clear.
Sir Jerry Mateparae (middle) with representatives of the PNG and Bougainville governments at the second moderation in April 2025. Image: ABG
DW: Well, Bougainville, in fact, is saying it will be independent by 1st September 2027. How likely do you think that is?
TO: I think there’s a question that comes before that. When Bougainville says that they will be independent by such a date, what we need to first consider is that the process of mediation is still unfolding.
I think that the first thing to consider is, what would that independence look like, and what scope is there within the mediation for finding some compromise that still suits Papua New Guinea. I think that there’s a much greater range of outcomes than people realise within this sort of umbrella of independence, the Bougainvilleans themselves, have moved to a position of understanding independence in much more nuanced terms than previously.
You might imagine that in the aftermath of this fairly brutal and bitter civil conflict, the idea of independence at that time was quite a radical cut towards “full bruk loose” as they say.
But the reality is that for many post colonial and new states since World War Two, there are many different kinds of independence and the degree to which there remains a kind of attachment with or relationship with the so called parent colonial country is variable, I should add.
I do not want to digress too much, but this concept of the parent colonial country is something that I heard quite a lot of when I was studying the referendum itself. Many people would say that the relationship that they had to Papua New Guinea was not one of enmity or of like running away, it was more a question of there being a parent and Bougainville having now grown up to the point where the child, Bougainville, is ready to go off and set up its own house.
Many people thought of it in those terms. Now I think that in concrete terms that can be articulated in many different ways when we think about international law and the status of different sovereign nations around the world.
DW: If we can just look at some of the possibilities in terms of the way in which this independence might be interpreted. My understanding is, for Bougainville it’s vital that they have a degree of sovereignty that will allow them to join organisations like the United Nations, but they’re not necessarily looking to be fully independent of PNG.
TO: Yes, I think that there would be like a process underway in Bougainville for understanding what that would look like.
There are certainly people who would have a view that is still more firmly towards full independence. And there will be others who understand some type of free association arrangements or something that still retains a closer relationship with Papua New Guinea.
I do not think many people have illusions that Bougainville could, for instance, suddenly break loose of the very deep economic connections it has with Papua New Guinea, not only those of government funding, but the commercial connections which are very, very deep. So suddenly making that disappear is not something people believe it’s possible.
But there are many other options that are on the table. I think what Bougainville is doing by having the announcement of the Independence Day is setting for Papua New Guinea saying, like, “here is the terms of the debate that we are prepared to consider”. But within that there is still a great deal of giving and taking.
DW: Now within the parliament in PNG, I think Bougainville has felt for some time that there hasn’t been a great deal of understanding of what Bougainville has been through, or what it is Bougainville is trying to achieve. There’s a very different lineup of MPs to what they were at the turn of the century when the Bougainville Peace Agreement was finalised. So what are they thinking, the MPs from other parts of the country? Are they going to be supportive, or are they just thinking about the impact on their own patch?
TO: I am not entirely sure what the MPs think, and they are a very diverse bunch of people. The sort of concern I think that many have, certainly more senior ones, is that they do not want to be the people in charge when this large chunk of the country secedes.
I think that is something that is important, and we do not want to be patronising the Papua New Guineans, who have a great deal of national pride, and it is not an event of celebration to see what is going on.
For many, it is quite a tragic chain of events. I am not entirely sure what the bulk of MPs believes about this. We have conducted some research, which is non randomised, but it is quite large scale, probing attitudes towards Bougainvillean independence in 2022, around the time of the election.
What we found, which is quite surprising, is that while, of course, Bougainville has the highest support for independence of any place in Papua New Guinea, there are substantial numbers of people outside Bougainville that are sympathetic to Bougainvillean independence or sympathetic towards implementing the referendum.
I think that would be the wording, I would choose, quite large numbers of people. So, as well as, many people who are very much undecided on the issues. From a Papua New Guinean perspective, the views are much more subtle than you might think are the case. By comparison, if you did a survey in Madrid of how many people support Catalan independence, you would not see figures similar to the ones that we find for Papua New Guinea.
DW: Bougainville is due to go to elections later this year. The ABG has stated that it wants this matter sorted, I think, at the time that the election writs are issued sometime in June. Will it be able to do this do you think?
TO: It’s always difficult to predict anything, especially the future. That goes double in Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. I think the reality is that the nature of negotiations here and in Bougainville, there’s a great deal of personal connections and toing and froing that will be taking place.
It is very hard to fit that onto a clear timeline. I would describe that as perhaps aspirational, but it would be, it would be good. Whether this is, you know, a question of electoral politics within Bougainville, I think there would be, like, a more or less unanimous view in Bougainville that this needs to move forward as soon as possible. But I don’t know that a timeline is realistic.
The concerns that I would have about this, Don, would be not just about sort of questions of capacity and what happens in the negotiations in Bougainville, but we also need to think about what is happening in Papua New Guinea, and this goes for the entire process.
But here, in this case, PNG has its hands full with many other issues as well. There is a set of like LLG [Local Level Government] elections about to happen, so there are a great deal of things for the government to attend to. I wonder how viable it is to come up with a solution in a short time, but they are certainly capable of surprising everybody.
DW: The Prime Minister, James Marape, has said on a number of occasions that Bougainville is not economically ready or it hasn’t got the security situation under control. And my understanding is that when this was raised at the last meeting, there was quite a lot of giggling going on, because people were comparing what’s happened in Bougainville with what’s happening around the rest of the country, including in Southern Highlands, the province of Mr Marape.
TO: I think you know for me when I think about this, because I have worked with Bougainvilleans for a long time, and have worked with Papua New Guineans for a long time as well. The sense that I have is really one of quite sadness and a great missed opportunity.
Because if we wind the clock back to 1975, Bougainville declared independence, trying to pre-empt [the establishment of] Papua New Guinea. And that set in train a set of events that drastically reformed the Papua New Guinean political Constitution. Many of the sort of characteristic institutions we see now in Papua New Guinea, such as provinces, came about partly because of that.
That crisis, that first independence crisis, the first secession crisis, was resolved through deep changes to Papua New Guinea and to Bougainville, in which the country was able to grow and move forward.
What we see now, though, is this sort of view that Bougainville problems must all be solved in Bougainville, but in fact, many of the problems that are said to be Bougainville problems are Papua New Guinea problems, and that would include issues such as the economic difficulties that Bougainville finds itself in.
I mean, there are many ironies with this kind of criticism that Bougainville is not economically viable. One of them being that when Papua New Guinea became independent, it was largely dependent on Bougainville at that time. So Bougainvilleans are aware of this, and don’t really welcome that kind of idea.
But I think that more deeply there were some really important lessons I believe that could have been learned from the peace process that might have been very useful in other areas of Papua New Guinea, and because Bougainville has been kind of seen as this place apart, virtually as a foreign nation, those lessons have not, unfortunately, filtered back to Papua New Guinea in a way that might have been very helpful for everybody.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.
For most of this federal election campaign, politicians have said very little about violence against women and children.
Now in the fourth week of the five-week campaign, Labor has released its “commitment to women” announcement. The Coalition has also flagged it will have something to say on the topic before polling day.
But the fact domestic, family and sexual violence hasn’t been more central to the election campaign is surprising. Less than 12 months ago, following rising community outrage after the killing of a number of women, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared violence against women and children a national crisis.
Over the past week, the killing of several women in different circumstances, allegedly by men’s violence, has been a reminder of the persistence of this national crisis.
In an election that’s largely focused on cost of living, this epidemic of violence should also be front and centre.
The scale and impact of this violence is profound – cutting across culture, age, geography and class. It causes immediate and long-term harm and costs the country an estimated $26 billion annually.
Why haven’t we heard much?
An obvious explanation might be that violence against women has already been addressed by successive governments – that enough has been done. Others may argue that it’s been overshadowed by more politically “pressing” issues.
Some may even suggest it’s because of a broader political shift away from gender equality commitments, influenced by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) sentiment that has gained traction internationally.
Perhaps a more generous explanation is that the lack of political attention stems from fear of getting the response wrong. The domestic and family violence sector can be fraught with complexity, with different ideas about what should be prioritised.
The national prevention agenda has faced critique in recent months. Scrutiny of whether we are on the right path should always be welcomed, but division is unhelpful.
Complexity should never be an excuse for inaction. Instead, this moment requires political courage and clarity. A declaration of a national crisis is merely rhetoric if it’s not followed by meaningful actions and measurable commitments.
Beyond election cycles
It’s crucial the next federal government delivers a response to domestic violence that’s commensurate with the scale of the problem. This requires a significant increase in investment across the entire ecosystem to boost service availability and accessibility.
This means moving beyond one-off or short-term funding to ensure sustainability across the system, including for crisis response and early intervention initiatives. Consistency of services is needed to disrupt the cycle of intergenerational harm, to understand what works in engaging people who use violence, and to promote long-term recovery.
There should also be improved collaboration between levels of government. For too long, the siloed approach has impeded progress. The National Partnership Agreement provides a solid foundation for this.
Evidence shows strengthening coordination across agencies and jurisdictions will help identify more women and families at risk of violence. Information-sharing arrangements will also help keep them safer across state and territory boundaries. System failures and blindspots can cost lives.
What else would help?
If elected, Labor has committed to focusing on ending financial abuse and expanding interventions for people who use violence. This means increased funding for perpetrator interventions, including electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders and earlier interventions for young people who use violence.
These intiatives are welcome, but the list of actions needed extends well beyond these commitments.
Fully funding frontline services is a crucial start. This must include services for children and young people experiencing and escaping violence in their own right, and services across rural and remote communities. There’s limited support available in these areas.
Ensuring access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services for communities disproportionately affected by violence is also key.
First Nations leaders, practitioners, academics and victim-survivor advocates should be resourced to deliver the dedicated First Nations National Plan and to fully implement the First Nations National Action Plan. This is especially important for First Nations communities, including in the Northern Territory, where calls for increased funding have long been made.
The support service workforce, which has a high turnover and burn-out rate, must be better supported, including through ongoing professional development and capability training.
In recent weeks, others have called for a national strategy for people who use violence.
Measuring progress is key
Regardless of specific policy commitments, we should be transparently monitoring and evaluating progress on addressing violence. This is the backbone of any effective policy response – without data, we are blind to what works, what doesn’t, and where to focus efforts.
The first national plan was criticised for failing to do this comprehensively. We are at risk of repeating the same mistake.
While this responsibility sits within the functions of the inaugural Commissioner for Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, it has yet to eventuate beyond the information included in the commission’s yearly reports to parliament.
Regardless of who forms government – whether majority or minority – it’s imperative domestic, family and sexual violence remains front and centre in national policymaking. This is not an issue that can wait for the “right time” or for conditions to be more favourable. Women’s and children’s lives depend on it.
The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.
Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.
Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne
Last week, the federal government announced a $10 million commitment to make Medicare more inclusive for LGBTQIA+ Australians. It aims to improve their access to “inclusive, culturally safe primary care” through training and accreditation for GPs, nurses and other health-care providers.
The precise details will depend on which training provider wins the government’s grant. But they will have a strong body of evidence to draw on, which shows the challenges LGBTQIA+ people face in health care – and what it would take to make mainstream services more inclusive.
Why is this needed?
Many LGBTQIA+ Australians lead happy and healthy lives. But, unfortunately, a disproportionate number experience significantly poorer health outcomes compared to the general population.
LGBTQIA+ Australians are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and psychological distress. They also have higher rates of suicidal thoughts, self-harm and suicide.
Many of these health inequalities stem from experiences of discrimination and stigma. These can lead LGBTQIA+ people to avoidhealth services for routine as well as preventive care (such as screening and regular check-ups).
Young people in the LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to experience mental health distress. Alexx60/Shutterstock
What does ‘inclusive, culturally safe’ care look like?
Inclusive and safe health care means more than just rainbow posters in the waiting room. It’s a concrete change in how care is delivered.
At a basic level, this involves respectful communication – using a patient’s correct pronouns and chosen name, and avoiding assumptions about their body, relationships or identity.
For example, an inclusive GP will ask open-ended questions (“do you have a partner?”) rather than presume a patient’s partner is of the opposite sex. They will not assume a trans patient’s health-care needs are only related to being trans.
Training might cover how to discuss sensitive topics (such as sexual behaviour or gender dysphoria) in a non-judgmental, inclusive way, and how to handle mistakes.
Making people feel safe to disclose their LGBTQIA+ status is also crucial. This has been shown to improve continuity of care and access to high-value preventive care. It may also help people disclose other sensitive issues, such as family violence.
When GPs and others in primary care understand LGBTQIA+ health needs, they’re better placed to make appropriate referrals – for example, to psychologists with relevant expertise or to specialist gender-affirming care services.
How this funding could help
This funding is part of the government’s ten-year national action plan to improve the health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ people.
The plan focuses on enhancing community-led and specialist LGBTQIA+ services (such as gender-affirming care or HIV medicine) and mainstream services, so they work better in tandem.
It was developed through extensive consultations with LGBTQIA+ communities across Australia. These consultations found inclusive primary care was a top concern.
Making “mainstream” health care more inclusive is important because it is the most frequently accessed point of care for most Australians, including LGBTQIA+ Australians.
An estimated 84% of LGBTQIA+ Australians use “mainstream” medical clinics for their primary health care. Only 6% use LGBTQIA+ specific clinics – in part, because they are not widely available.
Improving mainstream primary care for LGBTQIA+ Australians is therefore particularly important for those in rural areas, where there can be reduced access to specialist health-care providers. People should not have to hide who they are or travel long distances to get the care they need.
This means patients will be able to easily identify services that are “safe and trusted” for LGBTQIA+ communities. It could affect the look and feel of the waiting room, but will also be reflected in policies, procedures and management.
For example, accredited services should have intake forms that meet Australian Bureau of Statistics standards. Record-keeping would reflect options for diverse genders, titles and family structures. Patients would be assured their information is kept private and confidential, so they feel safe disclosing personal information.
Accredited services would recognise different genders and family structures. Kaboompics.com/Pexels
Existing training resources have been available and processes such as Rainbow Tick accreditation have had modest take-up in some larger hospitals and community health centres.
But primary care providers are often overwhelmed by many other essential training needs and have under-utilised these offerings to date.
This funding will be a huge incentive for many of these clinicians and services to step up, as it signals a new level of priority.
If implemented effectively, this program could mark a significant step toward a health-care system where LGBTQIA+ Australians – whether a queer teenager in the city, a Brotherboy in a remote community, or an older trans woman in aged care – can get the care they need without discrimination or fear.
The challenge now will be turning this $10 million promise into real on-the-ground change. This means accrediting a majority of clinics, training thousands of health workers, partnering with LGBTQIA+ community organisations and ultimately ensuring every patient is treated with the understanding and respect they deserve.
Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.
Ruth McNair was part of the expert advisory group for the LGBTIQA+ health and wellbeing ten-year action plan from 2023 to 2024.
Mo Hammoud 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.
Brazil’s federal police recently pulled back the curtain on a criminal web that had infiltrated the country’s fuel distribution chains. What looked like ordinary gas stations were, in fact, outposts of a vast laundering machine, washing dirty money with diesel and ethanol. According to Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, more than 1,000 service stations across the country were overseen by organised crime syndicates.
The plot thickened when Rio de Janeiro’s state police launched raids against the so-called “fuel mafia”, dismantling a racket that sold millions of liters of adulterated fuel. In the process, they revealed a network of ghost companies churning out fake invoices.
Crime moves into the fuel sector
Across Brazil organised crime is diversifying beyond narcotics, arms trafficking into the biofuel and fossil fuel sectors. Criminal factions with names such as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), Comando Vermelho (CV), and militia groups made-up of retired and active duty police are expanding into fuel theft, smuggling, tax evasion, and money laundering. The pivot by Brazil’s criminal underworld underscores their adaptability in exploiting legitimate markets.
Fuel theft is hardly new to Brazil. The country’s top fuel distributors – Ale, BR, Ipiranga, and Raizen – have warned of criminal infiltration. But the costs of these illegal activities are significant. According to ICL, an industry group, illegal profits generated by gas stations amounted to $23 billion reais($3.89 billion) in 2021.
A 2022 study by the Brazilian Public Security Forum (FBSP) revealed that criminal organisations generated approximately 146.8 billion reais (around $25.4 billion) from sectors including fuel, gold, cigarettes, and beverages far surpassing the revenues from cocaine trafficking.
Meanwhile, a 2024 assessment found that the costs of cargo-theft, fuel-related robberies and fraud generated annual losses of $29 billion reais. Vibra Energia estimated that roughly 13 billion liters of fuel were being traded through “irregular” means a year.
Fake gas stations, adulterated fuel, and tax fraud
Organised criminal groups employ multiple strategies to exploit the fuel sector. The most common involves the use of “pirate” gas stations — outlets that flout safety standards and sell adulterated and stolen fuel. Police have exposed hundreds of gas stations linked to individuals indicted or convicted for fuel-related offenses since 2015. In 2019, for example, BR purged its retail network of 730 stations nationwide suspected of involvement in “irregularities”.
By 2023, the PCC reportedly extended its influence to five ethanol plants and approximately 1,100 of São Paulo’s 9,000 gas stations. And in 2024, police claimed that as many as 30 gas stations in Rio de Janeiro were under PCC control. Meanwhile, the National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) reported that violations related to the use of methanol — a toxic substance commonly used to adulterate fuels—increased by over 73 percent compared to the previous year.
Fraud and tax evasion are also common in the fuel sector. In Brazil, fuel taxes on ethanol vary from state to state. These discrepancies create incentives for enterprising criminals to purchase fuel from low-tax jurisdictions and resell in high-tax states to station owners who charge higher tax and pocket the difference.
A 2019 study by FGV estimated that fuel-related tax evasion generated 7.2 billion reais ($1.3 billion), with major rewards for petrol station owners that laundered funds. There are also schemes that involve tax fraud in fuel production and illegal diesel imports. One prominent case involved Copape, a company that sold fuel below market price by evading import taxes and manipulating its product. The company was later shut down amid allegations of ties to the PCC.
Another common strategy involves outright theft by installing clandestine taps and siphoning fuel from pipelines. This practice often leads to significant economic losses and poses environmental hazards and public safety risks. The process usually involves precise “insider” knowledge of pipeline networks. In 2019, for example, Petrobras identified over 261 such incidents in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo alone.
The direct targeting of personnel and infrastructure has also occurred. In 2019, for example, more than 40 people were arrested in Rio de Janeiro in 2019 suspected of extorting and murdering Petrobras contactors. The group was described as highly organised with separate divisions for intimidating targets, tapping pipelines, transporting stolen fuel, and monitoring police movements. Stolen fuel can be sold on to asphalt companies, underground gas owners, and others.
The entrenchment of organised crime in biofuels such as sugar and palm oil has resulted in confrontations with state authorities. In August 2024, 59,000 hectares of São Paulo’s sugarcane plantations were ravaged by fires resulting in losses of over 1 billion reais. Authorities suspect that the PCC orchestrated arson attacks as retaliation against government measures targeting their involvement in the adulterated fuel trade.
And in February 2025, police in Rio de Janeiro revealed that operators of an illegal gambling (jogo do bicho) network were financing the criminal extraction of oil from underground pipelines. Proceeds were used to acquire equipment, rent fuel transport vehicles, and pay off personnel. In Rio, and elsewhere in Brazil, such activities undermine the rule of law, distort markets, and erode public trust.
Technology-enabled solutions to disrupt fuel theft
Preventing and disrupting infiltration of organised crime into the fuel sectors is challenging. Legal proceedings are often protracted. Efforts by fuel distributors to terminate franchise agreements with non-compliant operators are often stymied by prolonged court battles. The sophistication of Brazil’s criminal organisations also complicates enforcement efforts including their blending of illicit activities with legitimate business.
At a minimum, federal and state authorities need to track gas stations and pipelines that are implicated in crime. Advanced tracking technologies that improve transparency in the fuel supply chain. And these solutions need to be bolstered by intelligence sharing across jurisdictions. One promising response comes from Brazil’s National Institute of Metrology (Inmetro) which has expanded its inspections of fuel pumps and product quality.
Companies like Petrobras have ramped up their security measures to protect pipelines, refineries, transportation systems, and petrol stations. Advanced surveillance systems, including drones and sensor-based technology, are now being used by its subsidiary, TransPetro, to monitor pipeline integrity.
Specialised response teams have also been established to detect and contain illegal taps. Petrobras and Transpetro have also increased collaboration with federal and state security forces to target organised crime cells involved in fuel theft and trafficking.
In especially high-risk areas, particularly near major refineries such as Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro, joint operations with law enforcement have resulted in arrests and the seizure of illegal equipment used to tap pipelines.
Petrobras has invested in internal compliance, audit mechanisms, and fuel traceability systems to track product movement and prevent insider threats and diversion to illicit markets. The company has also partnered with regulatory agencies like the (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels, or ANP) to tighten oversight over gas stations and transport companies suspected of facilitating the resale of adulterated or stolen fuel.
Legislation and regulation is also needed to increase penalties for criminality in the fuel sector. Legal reforms, including a new bill approved in April 2025 targets companies that systematically evade taxes. Another bill is being explored that would mandate real-time electronic reporting of fuel sales and storage to ANP in order to increase traceability.
A new Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry focusing on the relationship between organised crime and fuel is also about to be launched. Federal police, together with the financial intelligence unit (COAF) and tax authorities are also preparing a broad investigation into related activities.
Addressing the infiltration of organised crime into Brazil’s biofuel and fossil fuel sectors requires more than enforcement — it demands a coordinated national strategy backed by industry cooperation. Enforced compliance, empowered regulators, transparent supply chains, and worker protections are essential. Without urgent and sustained action, organised crime will continue siphoning off Brazil’s future, weakening one of its most vital sectors.
*Katherine Aguirre, senior researcher at Igarape Institute, contributed to this article
Dr. Robert Muggah is the co-founder of the Igarapé Institute, an independent “think and do tank” that develops research, solutions and partnerships to address global public, digital and climate security challenges. Dr. Muggah is also a principal of the SecDev Group, and an advisor to the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank. An advisor to AI start-ups and a climate tech venture firms, Dr. Muggah has experience developing new technologies and testing AI systems for security and governance.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director, Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute and Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, RMIT University
The Fair Work Commission has found award pay rates in five industrial awards covering a range of female-dominated occupations and industries do not provide equal pay.
This important decision should narrow the gender pay gap.
The commission proposed significant increases to award pay rates covering thousands of workers including pharmacists, early childhood education and care workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and some other health workers.
The Fair Work Commission’s review of the five “priority” awards was undertaken following the Labor government’s changes to the Fair Work Act in 2022. The changes require the commission to take account of the need to achieve gender equality in setting modern award rates of pay.
Who is covered by the latest review?
The five priority modern awards reviewed by the expert panel are:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020
Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010.
The commission examined the evidence and found many pay rates in the five modern awards do not reflect the value of the work undertaken in these female-dominated occupations and industries.
The commission found pay rates in these awards are not equal to pay rates for comparable work, due to the work largely being done by women.
Skills typically required to work with and to provide care and support to people, sometimes referred to as “soft” skills, have not been valued as much as the so-called “hard” skills required in male-dominated technical roles.
Past attempts were not successful
Before the Labor government’s 2022 changes to the Fair Work Act, almost all attempts by unions to have industrial tribunals address gender pay inequity failed.
One major barrier to success was a requirement that discrimination be demonstrated. The need to prove gender undervaluation of work largely done by women by referring to “comparable” jobs largely undertaken by men has also been a problem.
Now, under an amended Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission is able to examine the skills required in feminised jobs to assess the work’s value without needing to find a male comparison.
The commission’s decision that a total increase of 14% in award rates for pharmacists is justified will take effect in three phases, starting in July 2025.
The commission’s decisions on pay increases for workers covered by the other four awards, including proposed increases of 23% for Certificate III qualified childcare workers, have been put forward as provisional views only. The expert panel will begin consultations on these views in May.
Some concerns remain
The commission’s proposal for remedying gender undervaluation in one of the awards, covering a broad range of workers in social and community services, including disability workers, is puzzling.
The remedy appears to risk undermining past pay gains won for many social and community services workers because of proposed changes in the classification structure. These changes may not take account of the complexity and diversity of skills used by workers in the wide range of roles covered by the award.
Reflecting this, unions have expressed concerns the proposals for changes to this award may have the unintended consequence of reducing pay and hurting careers for some workers.
The final pay increases and their timing for workers covered by the four awards other than the pharmacy award will be made following consultations with unions, employers and funding bodies, including federal and state governments.
Following last week’s decision, one large employer group is arguing employers in private hospitals and the early childhood education and care sectors cannot afford the proposed pay increases.
They are calling on the government to fund increases in the industries that are largely government funded, including the early childhood education and care sector.
The government has also funded a 15% pay increases for early childhood workers gained through a multi-enterprise agreement covering hundreds of centres. The first increase of 10% came into effect in December, with a further 5% increase due in December 2025.
Better pay in care and support occupations was identified by the Labor government as essential to the sustainability and growth of the care and support economy.
The Coalition has not made any commitments regarding funding for any pay increases awarded in the gender undervaluation proceedings. The Coalition spokeswoman on workplace relations, Michaelia Cash, said the Coalition would examine the decision and its implications.
The Coalition did not support the larger Same Job Same Pay legislation that included the gender equality changes.
Fiona Macdonald appeared as an expert witness in the Fair Work Commission’s hearing on the review of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award.
Beneath the surface of the Southern Ocean, vast volumes of cold, dense water plunge off the Antarctic continental shelf, cascading down underwater cliffs to the ocean floor thousands of metres below. These hidden waterfalls are a key part of the global ocean’s overturning circulation – a vast conveyor belt of currents that moves heat, carbon, and nutrients around the world, helping to regulate Earth’s climate.
For decades, scientists have struggled to observe these underwater waterfalls of dense water around Antarctica. They occur in some of the most remote and stormy waters on the planet, often shrouded by sea ice and funnelled through narrow canyons that are easily missed by research ships.
But our new research shows that satellites, orbiting hundreds of kilometres above Earth, can detect these sub-sea falls.
By measuring tiny dips in sea level – just a few centimetres – we can now track the dense water cascades from space. This breakthrough lets us monitor the deepest branches of the ocean circulation, which are slowing down as Antarctic ice melts and surface waters warm.
Dense water helps regulate the climate
Antarctic dense water is formed when sea ice grows, in the process making nearby water saltier and more dense. This heavy water then spreads across the continental shelf until it finds a path to spill over the edge, plunging down steep underwater slopes into the deep.
As the dense water flows northward along the seafloor, it brings oxygen and nutrients into the abyss – as well as carbon and heat drawn from the atmosphere.
But this crucial process is under threat. Climate change is melting the Antarctic ice sheet, adding fresh meltwater into the ocean and making it harder for dense water to form.
Underwater waterfalls around Antarctica carry dense, salty surface water into the depths of the ocean.
Past research has shown the abyssal circulation has already slowed by 30%, and is likely to weaken further in the years ahead. This could reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb heat and carbon, accelerating climate change.
Our research provides a new technique that can provide easy, direct observations of future changes in the Southern Ocean abyssal overturning circulation.
Satellites and sea level
Until now, tracking dense water cascades around Antarctica has relied on moorings, ship-based surveys, and even sensors attached to seals. While these methods deliver valuable local insights, they are costly, logistically demanding, carbon-intensive, and only cover a limited area.
Satellite data offers an alternative. Using radar, satellites such as CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3A can measure changes in sea surface height to within a few centimetres.
And thanks to recent advances in data processing, we can now extract reliable measurements even in ice-covered regions – by peering at the sea surface through cracks and openings in the sea ice.
Openings or ‘leads’ in sea ice can reveal the height of the sea surface beneath. NASA ICE via Flicker, CC BY
In our study, we combined nearly a decade of satellite observations with high-resolution ocean models focused on the Ross Sea. This is a critical hotspot for Antarctic dense water formation.
We discovered that dense water cascades leave a telltale surface signal: a subtle but consistent dip in sea level, caused by the cold, heavy water sinking beneath it.
By tracking these subtle sea level dips, we developed a new way to monitor year-to-year changes in dense water cascades along the Antarctic continental shelf. The satellite signal we identified aligns well with observations collected by other means, giving us confidence that this method can reliably detect meaningful shifts in deep ocean circulation.
Cheap and effective – with no carbon emissions
This is the first time Antarctic dense water cascades have been monitored from space. What makes this approach so powerful is its ability to deliver long-term, wide-reaching observations at low cost and with zero carbon emissions – using satellites that are already in orbit.
These innovations are especially important as we work to monitor a rapidly changing climate system. The strength of deep Antarctic currents remains one of the major uncertainties in global climate projections.
Gaining the ability to track their changes from space offers a powerful new way to monitor our changing climate – and to shape more effective strategies for adaptation.
Matthis Auger receives funding from the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Carr, Associate Professor, Strategy and Australian Defence Policy, Australian National University
In 2024, the National Defence Strategy made deterrence Australia’s “primary strategic defence objective”.
With writing now underway for the 2026 National Defence Strategy, can Australia actually deter threats to the nation?
Traditionally, our defence strategy only asked that our military capabilities “command respect”. In today’s world, however, Australia needs a far more active military posture to defend itself.
To effectively deter an adversary, Australia needs the equipment, signals and processes to convince a potentially hostile nation to reconsider the cost of militarily threatening us.
A deterrence strategy promises to reduce the likelihood of conflict. It reduces the opportunities for an adversary to score “cheap” wins by communicating how we could “deny” their main goal and potentially “punish” them for their aggression.
It forces an adversary to make a choice: back down or risk failing at your objective and starting a more significant confrontation.
While we don’t know exactly how a future adversary might react, Australia must do more to make our intent clear on how we would respond to a provocation.
We are part of an international team researching the ways to do this. This is what we think is needed in the next National Defence Strategy.
What deterrence looks like
Creating a credible deterrence posture is not easy. The 2024 defence strategy lists a wide variety of actions that could change an adversary’s risk assessment.
Some of these things are specific (surveilling and protecting Australia’s sea lanes of communication). Others are vague and loosely connected to deterrence (supporting the global rules-based order).
To make sure our deterrence message is as clear and effective as possible, the 2026 strategy will need a much tighter policy framework around where Australia would have the power to deter an adversary, and how we would do so.
It will also need to detail the specific defence preparations Australia has undertaken to credibly deter threats.
Vagueness in language or generalities in proposed actions will not cut it.
What history can teach us
The scholarly literature on how to implement an effective deterrence is largely drawn from Cold War history.
Many times, the US and USSR made deliberate efforts to send deterrence signals to the other side. They did this by acquiring new capabilities (such as longer-range missiles) and expanding their nuclear stockpiles, or by conducting military exercises and deploying forces around the world. These messages, however, were often misunderstood.
Sometimes, these signals – such as US President John F. Kennedy’s reinforcement of West Berlin with an additional battalion during the Berlin Crisis of 1961 – made political sense, but less so militarily.
One way for Australia to approach this deterrence question is considering the adversary’s theory of victory – how they seek to achieve their goal – and then identifying ways to explicitly and publicly show we can disrupt it.
For example, after winning the 1982 Falkland Islands War against Argentina, Britain invested significant resources into the Mount Pleasant Air Base on the islands. They are now home to up to 2,000 personnel, enabling significant and rapid reinforcements in the event of future hostilities.
The use of ‘trip wires’
Australia is now acquiring significant new strike capabilities. However, even if we increase our defence spending beyond the 3% of GDP currently being discussed, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will not be able to defend everything across the entire region and the waters around us.
We will need to find low-cost defensive actions.
Deterring an adversary from attempting a “cheap win” against Australia, for instance, might require the “forward presence” of Australian troops far from our own shores. Even if they would not be able to defend against an attack on their own, they could serve as a “trip wire” force. This means if they were attacked, it would likely compel Australia to go to war.
So, let’s say Australia has a “forward presence” of troops stationed in the Cocos Islands, Papua New Guinea or even the Philippines. This signals a credible commitment to use those forces to protect ourselves and our regional partners against a threat. And should these soldiers be killed, it would likely generate public anger and a political insistence on a significant response.
While a lot of contemporary military thinking is about how to put robots and drones in harm’s way instead of our fellow citizens, some tasks, such as a “forward presence” deterrence, can likely only be done by humans.
We need to be clear about red lines
All of this means that deterrence is not just about a country’s capabilities – going to war is ultimately about politics, and human emotion.
As such, credibility also depends on practical rituals – such as Britain holding Cabinet meetings in the Falklands and NATO hosting flag parades in the Baltics. These convey a belief over what matters enough to go to war.
For Australian deterrence to be more credible, the next iteration of the National Defence Strategy will have to be more explicit than its predecessor in spelling out what Australia would be willing to go to war over.
If our government cannot address this now, how are we going to communicate this to an adversary – and convince them of it – in a crisis?
The government is understandably reluctant to be specific about the commitments and threats it is willing and able to make in a public document, or to acknowledge the limits to Australia’s abilities.
But deterring without communicating is a contradiction in terms. We need to be explicit about what would cause Australia to resist or retaliate, even at the cost of war, in order to credibly deter an adversary from taking such an action.
This must be at the core of how the 2026 National Defence Strategy approaches deterrence as Australia’s “primary defence objective”.
This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.
Andrew Carr receives funding from the Department of Defence on a research project on ‘Pathways of Deterrence’.
Stephan Fruehling receives funding from the Department of Defence on a research project on ‘Pathways of Deterrence’.
Pope Francis has died after using his Easter Sunday address to call for peace in Gaza. I don’t know who the cardinals will pick to replace him, but I do know with absolute certainty that there are transnational intelligence operations in the works to make sure they select a more reliable supporter of Israel.
They’ve probably been working on it since his health started failing.
Anyone who’s been reading me for a while knows my attitude toward Roman Catholicism can be described as openly hostile because of my family history with the Church’s sexual abuses under Cardinal Pell, but as far as popes go this one was decent.
Francis had been an influential critic of Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza, calling for investigation of genocide allegations and denouncing the bombing of hospitals and the murder of humanitarian workers and civilians. He’d been personally calling the only Catholic parish in Gaza by phone every night during the Israeli onslaught, even as his health deteriorated.
In other words, he was a PR problem for Israel.
I hope another compassionate human being is announced as the next leader of the Church, but there are definitely forces pushing for a different outcome right now. There is no shortage of terrible men who could be chosen for the position.
❖
The most wholesome thing on the internet right now is Yemeni forces keeping a running tally of the US MQ-9 Reaper drones they’ve been destroying. These things are 30 million dollars apiece. pic.twitter.com/hJNHtkVgm1
Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Omer Dostri told Israel’s Channel 12 News on Saturday that a deal with Hamas to release all hostages was a non-starter for the Israeli government, because it would require a commitment to lasting peace.
“At the moment, there can’t be one deal since Hamas isn’t saying: ‘Come get your hostages and that’s that,’ it’s demanding an end to the war,” Dostri said in the interview.
This comes as Hamas offers to return all hostages, stop digging tunnels, and put away its weapons in exchange for a permanent ceasefire. This is what Israel is dismissing as unacceptable.
The Pope has died Video/audio: Caitlin Johnstone
The Gaza holocaust was never about freeing the hostages. This has been clear ever since Israel began aggressively bombing the place where the hostages are living, and it’s gotten clearer and clearer ever since. Last month Netanyahu made it clear that Israel intends to carry out Trump’s ethnic cleansing plans for the enclave even if Hamas fully surrenders.
When Washington’s podium people say the “war” in Gaza can end if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down their arms, they are lying. They are lying to ensure that the genocide continues.
When Israel apologists say “Release the hostages!” in response to criticisms of Israeli atrocities, they are lying. They know this has never had anything to do with hostages. They are lying to help Israel commit more atrocities.
It was never about the hostages. It was never about Hamas. What it’s really about was obvious from day one: purging Palestinians from Palestinian land. That’s all this has ever been.
❖
After executing 15 medical workers in Gaza and getting caught lying about it, the IDF has investigated itself and attributed the massacre to “professional failures” and “operational misunderstandings”, finding no evidence of any violation of its code of ethics.
It’s crazy to think about how much investigative journalism went into exposing this atrocity only to have Israel go “Yeah turns out we did an oopsie, no further action required, thank you to our allies for the latest shipment of bombs.”
❖
The death toll from Trump’s terrorist attack on a Yemen fuel port is now up to 80, with 150 wounded. Again, the US has not even tried to claim this was a military target. They said they targeted this critical civilian infrastructure to hurt the economic interests of the Houthis.
Those who are truly anti-war don’t support Trump. Those who support Trump aren’t truly anti-war.
I still get people telling me I need to be nicer to Trump supporters because they’re potential allies in resisting war, which to me is just so silly. What are they even talking about? Trump supporters, per definition, currently support the one person who is most singularly responsible for the horrific acts of war we are seeing in the middle east right now. Telling me they’re my allies is exactly as absurd as telling me Biden supporters were my allies last year would have been, except nobody was ever dumb enough to try to make that argument.
If you still support Trump in April 2025 after seeing all his monstrous behavior in Gaza and Yemen, then we are on completely opposite sides. You might think you’re on the same side as me because you oppose war in theory, but when the rubber meets the road it turns out you’ll go along with any acts of mass military slaughter no matter how evil so long as they are done by a Republican. We are not allies, we are enemies. You side with the most egregious warmonger in the world right now, and I want your side to fail.
❖
People say “It’s the Muslims!” or “It’s the Jews!”
No, it’s the Americans. The US-centralised empire is responsible for most of our world’s problems.
It says so much about the strength of the imperial propaganda machine that this isn’t more obvious to more people.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 22, 2025.
How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University Following the death of Pope Francis, we’ll soon be seeing a new leader in the Vatican. The conclave – a strictly confidential gathering of Roman Catholic cardinals – is due to meet in a matter of weeks to elect
Haka in the House: what will Te Pāti Māori’s protest mean for tikanga in parliament? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University Te Pāti Māori’s Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke lead a haka with Eru Kapa-Kingi outside parliament, November 19, 2024. Getty
Pope Francis has died, aged 88. These were his greatest reforms – and controversies ANALYSIS: By Joel Hodge, Australian Catholic University and Antonia Pizzey, Australian Catholic University Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia. Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began: “Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the
Is a corporation a slave? Many philosophers think so Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan Ian Wallace, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University f11photo/Shutterstock If you’ve ever heard the term “wage slave”, you’ll know many modern workers – perhaps even you – sometimes feel enslaved to the organisation at which they work. But here’s a different way of thinking about it:
Rates will never be enough – councils need the power to raise money in other ways Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy C. Charlton, Adjunct Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Associate Professor, University of New England Getty Images You might have recently received voting papers for your local body elections. Going by our historically low participation rates, many of those envelopes will remain unopened. This
Early voting opens in the federal election – but it brings some problems for voters and parties Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University More than 18 million Australians are enrolled to vote at the federal election on May 3. A fair proportion of them – perhaps as many as half – will take advantage of early voting, which
‘I’m a failure’: how schema therapy tackles the deep-rooted beliefs that affect our mental health Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast Jorm Sangsorn/Shutterstock If you ever find yourself stuck in repeated cycles of negative emotion, you’re not alone. More than 40% of Australians will experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many are linked to
Since its very conception, Star Wars has been political. Now Andor will take on Trump 2.0 Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Golding, Professor and Chair of the Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology Lucasfilm Ltd™ Premiering today, the second and final season of Star Wars streaming show Andor seems destined to be one of the pop culture defining moments of the second Trump presidency.
Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese. After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly
How the next pope will be elected – what goes on at the conclave Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross Cardinals attend Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, before they enter the conclave to decide who the next pope will be, on March 12, 2013, in Vatican City. Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Image With the death of
Twinkling star reveals the shocking secrets of turbulent plasma in our cosmic neighbourhood Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Reardon, Postdoctoral Researcher, Pulsar Timing and Gravitational Waves, Swinburne University of Technology Artist’s impression of a pulsar bow shock scattering a radio beam. Carl Knox/Swinburne/OzGrav With the most powerful radio telescope in the southern hemisphere, we have observed a twinkling star and discovered an abundance of
Pope Francis has died, aged 88. These were his greatest reforms – and controversies Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Hodge, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with a serious bout of double pneumonia. Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:
Pope Francis tried to change the Catholic Church for women, with mixed success Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracy McEwan, School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, died on Easter Monday at the age of 88. On Easter Sunday, he used his message and blessing to appeal for peace in Middle East and
Following the death of Pope Francis, we’ll soon be seeing a new leader in the Vatican. The conclave – a strictly confidential gathering of Roman Catholic cardinals – is due to meet in a matter of weeks to elect a new earthly head.
The word conclave is derived from the Latin con (together) and clāvis (key). It means “a locked room” or “chamber”, reflecting its historical use to describe the locked gathering of cardinals to elect a pope.
Held in the Sistine Chapel, the meeting follows a centuries-old process designed to ensure secrecy and prayerful deliberation. A two-thirds majority vote will be required to successfully elect the 267th pope.
History of the conclave
The formalised papal conclave dates back centuries. And various popes shaped the process in response to the church’s need.
Pope Gregory X brought in the rules to prevent a repeat of his own experience. The conclave that elected him in September 1271 (following the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268) lasted almost three years.
Further adjustments have been made to streamline the process and emphasise secrecy, culminating in Pope John Paul II’s 1996 constitution, Universi Dominici gregis (The Lord’s whole flock). This document set the modern framework for the conclave.
In 2007 and 2013, Benedict XVI reiterated that a two-thirds majority of written votes would be required to elect a new pope. He also reaffirmed penalties for breaches of secrecy.
The secrecy surrounding the conclave ensures the casting of ballots remains confidential, and without any external interference.
The last known attempt at external interference in a papal conclave occurred in 1903 when Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria sought to prevent the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. However, the assembled cardinals rejected this intervention, asserting the independence of the electoral process.
How does voting work?
The conclave formally begins between 15 and 20 days after the papal vacancy, but can start earlier if all cardinals eligible to vote have arrived. Logistical details, such as the funeral rites for the deceased pope, can also influence the overall timeline.
Historically, the exact number of votes required to elect a new pope has fluctuated. Under current rules, a minimum two-thirds majority is needed. If multiple rounds of balloting fail to yield a result, the process can continue for days, or even weeks.
After every few inconclusive rounds, cardinals pause for prayer and reflection. This process continues until one candidate receives the two-thirds majority required to win. The final candidates do not vote for themselves in the decisive round.
The ballot paper formerly used in the conclave, with ‘I elect as Supreme Pontiff’ written in Latin. Wikimedia Commons
How is voting kept secret?
The papal conclave is entirely closed to the public. Voting is conducted by secret ballot within the Sistine Chapel in the Apostolic Palace, the pope’s official residence.
During the conclave, the Sistine Chapel is sealed off from outside communication. No cameras are allowed, and no live broadcast exists.
The cardinals involved swear an oath of absolute secrecy – under threat of excommunication if violated – ensuring all discussions and voting remain strictly confidential.
The iconic white smoke, produced by burning ballots once a pope has been chosen, is the only public signal the election has concluded successfully.
Who can be elected?
Only cardinals under 80 years of age at the time of conclave’s commencement can vote. Older cardinals are free to attend preparatory meetings, but can not cast ballots.
While the total number of electors is intended not to exceed 120, the fluctuating nature of cardinal appointments, as well as the age restrictions, make it difficult to predict the exact number of eligible voters at any given conclave.
Technically, any baptised Catholic man can be elected pope. In practice, however, the College of Cardinals traditionally chooses one of its own members. Electing an “outsider” is extremely rare, and has not occurred in modern times.
What makes a good candidate?
When faced with criticism from a member of the public about his weight, John XXIII (who was pope from 1958-1963) retorted the papal conclave was “not a exactly beauty contest”.
Merit, theological understanding, administrative skill and global perspective matter greatly. But there is also a collegial element – something of a “popularity contest”. It is an election, after all.
Cardinals discuss the church’s current priorities – be they evangelisation strategies, administrative reforms or pastoral concerns – before settling on the individual they believe is best suited to lead.
The cardinal electors seek someone who can unify the faithful, navigate modern challenges and maintain doctrinal continuity.
Controversies and criticisms
The conclave process has faced criticism for its strict secrecy, which can foster speculation about potential “politicking”.
Critics argue a tightly controlled environment might not reflect the broader concerns of the global church.
Some have also questioned whether age limits on voting cardinals fully capture the wisdom and experience found among older members.
Nonetheless, defenders maintain that secrecy encourages free and sincere deliberation, minimising external pressure and allowing cardinals to choose the best leader without fear of reprisal, or of public opinion swaying the vote.
Challenges facing the new pope
The next pope will inherit a mixed situation: a church that has grown stronger in certain areas under Francis, yet which grapples with internal divisions and external challenges.
Like other religions, the church faces secularisation, issues with financial transparency and a waning following in some parts of the globe.
For the newly elected pope, one of the earliest trials will be unifying the global Catholic community around a shared vision – an obstacle almost every pope has faced.
Striking the right balance between doctrine and pastoral sensitivity remains crucial. Also, addressing sexual abuse scandals and their aftermath will require decisive action, transparency and continued pastoral care for survivors.
Practical concerns also loom large. The new pope will have to manage the Vatican bureaucracy and interfaith relations, while maintaining the church’s voice on global crises such as migration and poverty – two issues on which Francis insisted mercy could not be optional.
The cardinal electors have a tough decision ahead of them. The Catholic community can only pray that, through their deliberations, they identify a shepherd who can guide the church through the complexities of the modern world.
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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 Dominic O’Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University
Te Pāti Māori’s Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke lead a haka with Eru Kapa-Kingi outside parliament, November 19, 2024.Getty Images
Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention.
Parliament’s Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will.
The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament’s rules. The MPs say they don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing because the committee won’t allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori.
According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this “is a display of power designed to silence us”.
But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general.
Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP.
Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart.
But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga?
The problem with ‘partnership’
According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally:
[Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction.
If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote.
This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent.
At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually “owns” parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value?
Part of the problem is the notion of “partnership” between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an “us and them” way of thinking.
In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that’s the case, parliament can’t then belong to everybody or reflect everybody’s customs and ways of being.
But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament.
Tikanga Māori in practice
However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself.
As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is
a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do.
Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics.
Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or “active discussion”, Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn’t necessarily require consensus.
Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy
The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It’s basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on “having the numbers”, which sometimes happens without any debate at all.
putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies.
If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn’t help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate.
But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a “house of representatives”. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.
Dominic O’Sullivan 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.
If you’ve ever heard the term “wage slave”, you’ll know many modern workers – perhaps even you – sometimes feel enslaved to the organisation at which they work.
But here’s a different way of thinking about it: for-profit business corporations are themselves slaves.
Corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Tesla are what the law describes as “legal persons”, with many of the same rights and duties in law as individual persons have.
One right that they do not share with individuals, however, is the right not to be owned as property – the right not to be enslaved.
For though Microsoft, Google and Tesla are persons in law, they are also owned by their shareholders as property. And as legal persons that are owned as property, I argue, such corporations are slaves.
Wait, what?
As someone who’s spent years researching the history and philosophy of corporate legal personhood, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the corporation as a kind of organism, or person.
I have come to the belief that corporations are persons not only in law, but are persons also in reality. Their legal personalities are only the recognition of real, underlying, group personalities.
I am far from the only person to believe in the reality of corporate personality.
Philosophers Christian List and Philip Pettit, for example, advance the idea in their influential 2011 book, Group Agency.
In the book, List and Pettit argue that an appropriately organised social group, such as a corporation, has attitudes independent of the attitudes of the group’s individual members.
More than the sum of its parts
Such a group is more than the sum of its parts. It has its own personality, which emerges from the coordinated action of its individual members. This personality can survive changes in membership.
This shows, List and Pettit claim, such groups have “minds of their own”. They possess a sophisticated psychology enabling them to reflect on their choices and actions, make judgements on the basis of evidence and understand concepts such as right and wrong, or life and death.
In short, appropriately organised social groups really are capable of being understood as persons – “group persons”. They exist, alongside individual persons, as a normal part of human society.
And these group persons are capable of being owned as property. Consider for-profit corporations. They are traded on markets as commodities; are bought, sold and exploited; and are forced to maximise profits in the interests of their owners – their shareholders.
They are persons owned as property. They are, in other words, in the condition of slavery.
Look at Roman slave law
The idea that group persons can be slaves is an old idea. With respect to the for-profit corporation, however, it is generally rejected by modern corporate law scholars.
They argue that because corporations are persons in law, this demonstrates such entities cannot be owned.
They also point out that shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their corporations. This shows, they say, that shareholders cannot be thought of as true owners.
Such objections can be met, however, by examining the slave laws of societies where slavery was legal.
Under Roman law, for instance, slaves – though the personal property of their masters – were clearly recognised as persons in law. They were able to own property, could contract, go into debt, be held responsible for wrongs, and sue others for wrongs committed against them.
Indeed, it was common for such slaves to run businesses of their own (though ultimately for the financial benefit of the master).
And when slaves ran such businesses, their masters had limited liability for the debts of their slaves – just as shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their for-profit corporations today.
Roman slave law is no exception in these respects. The same can be found under the slave laws of Ancient Greece, medieval Islam, and in those of the 19th century American South.
An Ancient Roman mosaic from Tunisia, showing slaves pouring drinks at a banquet. Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA
4 reasons this matters
Identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters for four reasons.
First, it highlights potential moral problems with owning corporations. When we have shares in the ownership of for-profit corporations, we are participating as masters in a system of slavery.
Second, the ability to own for-profit corporations as “slaves” is a major driver of inequality. The richest people in the world have all made their money from owning corporations, and their ability to amass such wealth would be unimaginable otherwise.
The third reason identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters is because it provides an explanation for why corporations maximise profits in the interests of shareholders. It is because shareholders own them, and force this behaviour upon them.
Fourth, identifying corporations as slaves offers a solution to the problem of corporate profit-maximising behaviour (a behaviour causing great social and environmental harm): getting rid of shareholders.
They are share-less corporations. They are unowned. They are corporations free from enslavement.
The effect is that they do not maximise profits. Instead, they value the wellbeing of their workers.
Duncan Ian Wallace 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.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.
Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.
In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.
Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.
I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of publictalks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.
The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.
The climate crisis: a long time coming
Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.
In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.
The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.
But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.
They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.
The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.
Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.
While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.
Rise up Australia
In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.
This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.
Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.
Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.
And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.
Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.
Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Golding, Professor and Chair of the Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology
Lucasfilm Ltd™
Premiering today, the second and final season of Star Wars streaming show Andor seems destined to be one of the pop culture defining moments of the second Trump presidency.
Andor, which began airing in 2022, tells the story of the early days of the Rebel Alliance before the adventures of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. The series is the most politically articulate of the Star Wars franchise.
Where older Star Wars entries focused on lightsaber battles and dogfights in space, Andor shows a world of political manifestos, fractious alliances between rebel groups, and surreptitious fundraising for revolution.
Season one of the show followed the political awakening of the titular Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), who progresses from troubled thief to total ideological commitment to fighting the Empire. The show also follows a covert revolutionary leader (Stellan Skarsgård), an ineffective politician who secretly finances the rebellion (Genevieve O’Reilly), and two Imperials manoeuvring for power (Denise Gough and Kyle Soller).
Aesthetically, Andor has more in common with the political filmmaking of the likes of The Battle of Algiers (1966), the films of Costa-Gavras, or early Paul Greengrass than the central Flash Gordon-inspired Star Wars saga.
As authoritarian governments and conflicts loom large globally, the final season of Andor in 2025 is perfectly timed to articulate anxieties much closer to home than the galaxy far, far away.
Star Wars has always been political
Andor is far from the first time that Star Wars has captured the political zeitgeist. In fact, much of the franchise’s success stems from the way it provides us with a pop culture language to talk about politics.
In 2016, Trump’s first election win coincided with the release of Rogue One, the Star Wars precursor to Andor.
Within days, two Star Wars creatives made public comparisons between Trump and Rogue One’s villains, with writer Chris Weitz posting on Twitter “the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization”. Writer Gary Whitta replied: “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”.
They were officially reprimanded by the studio. “This is a film that the world should enjoy,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger at the time. “It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film.”
Under the ownership of a risk averse corporation like Disney, Star Wars is supposed to be family friendly, apolitical entertainment.
However, since its very conception, Star Wars has been political.
Inspired by anti-Vietnam war protests, director George Lucas described Darth Vader and the Empire as “Nixonian gangsters” in early drafts of the original film’s script. Lucas, who had developed Apocalypse Now before Francis Ford Coppola ultimately directed the film, has consistently claimed to have thought of the Rebel Alliance as similar to North Vietnamese fighters resisting United States forces.
When it came time for the prequel trilogy in the 2000s, Lucas told a story of democracy willingly falling to dictatorship (beginning with a trade war, something not lost on contemporary observers). In 2005, Lucas even had Darth Vader paraphrase George W. Bush.
It has also shaped politics. Scholars and critics like Andrew Britton and Robin Wood argued Star Wars was so escapist and disconnected from politics here on earth that it set the scene for Ronald Reagan’s good-versus-evil rhetoric.
A galaxy not so far away
It is precisely Star Wars’ apolitical image that gives it so much political utility. A series with such strong heroes and villains inevitably invites comparison.
Almost immediately after its release in 1977, Star Wars became a pop culture language for understanding politics.
When Maggie Thatcher won government in the United Kingdom on May 4 1979, the Conservative Party took out an advertisement in the London Evening News congratulating her with the words “May the Fourth Be With You”.
When Ronald Reagan proposed a “Strategic Defense Initiative” missile system in 1983, critics immediately and famously labelled it “Star Wars” (something Lucas tried unsuccessfully to stop). Reagan himself eventually joined in, too, claiming in a speech in 1985 that “the Force is with us”.
It is easy to find examples of politicians of all stripes being likened to Star Wars villains like Darth Vader (most enduring was Dick Cheney who claimed to not mind the comparison).
Composer John Williams’ Imperial March has even been played at protests as a way to antagonise opponents.
The enduring currency of the political language of Star Wars is in part due to its generalities. In any political conflict it helps to have a way to describe an archetypal evil puppet master (the Emperor), his henchman (Darth Vader), and the soulful heroes putting their lives on the line (the Jedi).
The real trick to Star Wars’ ongoing relevance, however, lies in its very real inspirations. Whether it is George W. Bush, the Viet Cong, or the Bolsheviks, Star Wars has time and again turned the specifics of political history into mythology.
At a time where many see global politics as having set the stage for the Empire to Strike Back, the final season of Andor may give many a language to articulate A New Hope.
Dan Golding 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.
If you have a child born at the start of the year, you may be faced with a tricky and stressful decision. Do you send them to school “early”, in the year they turn five? Or do you “hold them back” and send them in the year they turn six?
Our new study surveyed Australian parents to understand their reasons for sending children to school early or on time or holding them back.
School entry in Australia
State regulations for the age of starting school vary across Australia, and between public, Catholic and independent schools.
Typically, however, children born in the first part of the year can be sent to school in either the year they turn five or the year they turn six. This can lead to big age caps in a school year level.
A 2019 study of more than 160,000 NSW students showed overall, 26% of children were held back, although there was variation between different regions. This is much higher than in many other countries. For example, delayed entry is as low as 5.5% in the United States and 6% in Germany.
In our research published in Early Education and Development, we surveyed 226 Australian parents who had a choice about whether to send their child to school in the year they turned five or six. Parents were from a mix of states and recruited via social media and a variety of other media, including parenting magazines.
We found 29% of parents intended to send their child to school in the first year they were eligible and 66% planned to start later. About 5% were unsure. Consistent with trends in other countries, parents were almost four times as likely to report they intended to start boys later than girls.
There were five key factors guiding their decisions.
1. Money and work
One group of factors, which we labelled “practical realities”, meant parents were more likely to send a child on time or early.
This included high early childhood education costs (it is much cheaper to send a child to a government school than pay for daycare) and parents’ work demands (and the benefits of regular school hours). As one parent said:
School is a cheaper option for many parents and community preschool (which is cheaper, depending on the number of days) is not a practical option for many working families.
2. A child’s size
Parents also considered their child’s physical size relative to their peers. Other studies suggest parents worry smaller boys will be bullied and will struggle to demonstrate sporting prowess.
Reflecting on this trend, one parent said:
I would prefer that my child wasn’t starting school with children well over a year older just because other parents think boys need a bit more time to mature. They are then significantly older and bigger by then.
3. Social readiness
Another group of factors involved children’s social, emotional and behavioral readiness for school. This includes their ability to pay attention and sit still, follow instructions, regulate and manage emotions and show empathy and consideration for others.
One parent sending their child to school in the year they turn five said:
Our child will be fine […] He is able, social and confident and hopefully this will mean he will have a positive school experience irrespective of what year he starts.
Another who chose to hold their child back suggested:
I want my child to be introduced to formal schooling as late as possible to ensure his brain development and emotional regulation are mature enough to handle the transition.
4. Family time
Another set of reasons influencing parents’ decisions was a desire to spend time together with their child before formal schooling. As one parent said:
I always hear that no one ever regrets sending their child a bit later but they often regret sending early. I can afford for her to have an extra year of preschool and time at home and that is a luxury I acknowledge not everyone has.
5. Milestones
Parents also looked to the future and considered their child’s age relative to peers. This included when they would be starting high school or completing teenage milestones, such as driving, drinking, managing friendships and finishing school. This might explain why rates of holding children back vary by region. As one parent told us:
The people around me having a choice (and holding their children back) ended up influencing my choice. She [my daughter] could have started school but would have been in a peer group that had been held back.
What about academic concerns?
Interestingly, parents did not typically express academic concerns or motivations (such as a desire to see their child move ahead of others academically) as a factor in their decision. Indeed, as one parent said:
I have very strong beliefs about what school readiness means and for me it is much more than just being academically ready.
Although there is evidence older children have a developmental advantage over younger children when entering school, academic benefits dissipate over time. For example, older children do better on Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN numeracy and literacy tests, but benefits fade or disappear by Year 9.
What does this mean?
Our research suggests the reasons why parents start a child early or hold them back are complex – and very much based on the needs of individual families and children.
Taken together they suggest teachers not only need to accommodate a wide range of ages starting school but a sizeable portion of families who will have “delayed” school for a variety of personal reasons.
Penny Van Bergen receives funding from the ARC, Google and the Marsden Fund.
Naomi Sweller receives funding from the ARC.
Rebecca Andrews receives funding from NSW Department of Education and the Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority.
Anne McMaugh and Kay Bussey do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If you ever find yourself stuck in repeated cycles of negative emotion, you’re not alone.
More than 40% of Australians will experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many are linked to deep-rooted feelings that develop from childhood experiences.
Changing these lifelong patterns takes time, energy and support. For some people, schema therapy can help.
What is schema therapy?
Schema therapy was developed in the 1990s by psychologist Jeffrey Young as an extension of cognitive behaviour therapy.
Cognitive behaviour therapy is a popular psychotherapy that helps people change problematic patterns in their thoughts and behaviour, improving how they feel.
Among psychological interventions, cognitive behaviour therapy has the strongest evidence for successfully treating the majority of mental health problems.
However, not all conditions benefit from it.
Cognitive behaviour therapy is brief (usually delivered across 10–12 sessions) and focuses on changing the “here and now”. But more complex issues – or those tied strongly to past experiences, such as multiple traumas – may need longer-term therapy.
Like cognitive behaviour therapy, schema therapy aims to help reframe unhelpful ways of thinking through regular sessions with a psychotherapist.
But instead of prioritising everyday challenges, it uncovers deep-rooted beliefs, explores how and why they formed, and how they affect day-to-day life and people’s perceptions of themselves.
What are schemas?
“Schemas” are mental blueprints that filter how we see ourselves, others and the world. Most of us are not consciously aware of them.
Yet schemas run deep. Problematic ones – such as “I am a failure” or “others can’t be trusted” or “the world is scary and unsafe” – can affect our mental health and lead us to destructive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.
For example, someone with a “failure” schema may be highly sensitive to criticism, experience crippling anxiety, and have low self-worth. Having a “mistrust” schema may cause issues with forming close relationships and lead to loneliness and depression.
Therapists may specialise in schema therapy through additional training and supervision, which can lead to accreditation with the International Society of Schema Therapy.
During schema therapy you and your therapist will discuss your current concerns and develop a safe and trusting relationship before exploring the problematic schemas that are affecting you today. Schema therapy may involve talking, completing a schema questionnaire, and engaging in therapeutic activities during and in between sessions.
These activities are tailored to your situation, once you’ve explored which schemas affect you and what negative emotions arise. They are designed to help you process and heal from negative feelings such as helplessness, anger and shame.
One such activity involves using mental imagery to revisit challenging experiences in your past and to reframe how you think about them.
Another is to use empty chairs in the therapy room to speak to the different parts of yourself that are connected to the negative emotions. For example, talking to your child self, or to the side of you that tries to hide your feelings from others.
After this you will work with your therapist to come up with positive behaviour change strategies and apply them in daily life. These could include things such as reducing procrastination and self-sacrificing behaviour (prioritising others’ needs over your own), regulating emotions, and setting healthy boundaries in relationships.
Who does it work for?
Schema therapy was specifically designed to help conditions that don’t respond to cognitive behaviour therapy. Since the early nineties, it has shown promise among people experiencing chronic depression and personality disorders, and people in prisons.
Schema therapy is increasingly being used with children and adolescents, as it can effectively be adapted to suit younger age groups and help them understand the complex psychological processes involved.
Schema therapy can take more time than some other approaches, including cognitive behaviour therapy. You may be working with your therapist for several months to a year before seeing real results.
It is likely to benefit people who can commit to the time needed and prioritise their therapy tasks over other things.
Like all therapies, schema therapy will take emotional energy. As you implement changes planned in therapy, enlisting the support of close friends or family may help you achieve long-lasting change.
Schema therapy can be effectively adapted for children and young people. SeventyFour/Shutterstock
I’m interested in schema therapy – what next?
Maybe you are experiencing a problem that short-term therapies don’t easily address.
Perhaps you have already tried cognitive behaviour therapy and have noticed some improvements in your mental health, but realise you still have some way to go. Or it’s possible you have exhausted self-help options and are looking for something that will change the deep-rooted feelings you think are connected to your past.
Learning about different therapy approaches is the first step in finding the right help for you.
The Schema Therapy Institute Australia has a list of schema therapists practising around the country.
You may see “schema therapy” listed as a therapy approach on your local psychology practices’ web pages. You can also ask your GP about referrals using Medicare options.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
More than 18 million Australians are enrolled to vote at the federal election on May 3.
A fair proportion of them – perhaps as many as half – will take advantage of early voting, which starts Tuesday April 22.
Hundreds of locations around Australia will morph into pre-polling centres for the next couple of weeks as we enter the final phase of the campaign.
Australians have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to vote early in recent elections. But there are some risks for voters if they jump the gun too quickly. And it’s upending the way parties and other candidates organise their campaigns.
Go early
The popularity of voting early has been on an upward trajectory in recent decades.
Research shows that in 2004, for instance, over 80% of Australians waited until polling day to cast their ballots.
But at the 2022 federal election, almost half of all Australians on the electoral roll voted early.
There were variations across jurisdictions. Queensland had the highest rate of pre-poll voting at 56.6%, while Tasmanians had the lowest at just 36.8%.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was actively encouraging people to vote early due to COVID concerns. Nonetheless, the trend is unmistakable. Voters want to skip the queues on election day.
Logistical problems
Early voting has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially the length of time it is available to voters. The major political parties have expressed concern about the impact it has on campaign planning and logistics.
In its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2019 election, the Liberal Party highlighted how pre-poll voting placed “significant pressure on political parties” and their ability to provide booth workers for the entire early voting period, which was almost three weeks long.
Similarly, Labor acknowledged “significant practical implications for political parties and campaign managers”. The Greens also indicated they were in favour of limiting the pre-poll period.
Following the rise in early voting at the 2016 and 2019 elections, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended pre-polling be restricted to a fortnight before election day.
The committee noted:
a two week period best balances the opportunity to participate in an election as a voter, with the logistic demands placed on those who participate as contestants.
The electoral laws were subsequently changed by the Morrison government in 2021.
But given Easter Monday and Anzac Day both fall within the fortnight preceding May 3, the early polling window for this election will be further reduced.
Campaign disruption
The rising popularity of early voting plays havoc with the campaign plans of all candidates.
In the past, when the overwhelming majority of voters waited for election day, it made sense for the major parties in particular to continually drip feed promises and announcements until the last day of voting.
Parties now have less time to pitch for support during the campaign. The critical window of opportunity to appeal to voters is the time between the election being called and when Australians flock to the polls at the start of early voting.
It is highly likely we have already seen all the major policies in this election, including the voter-friendly cost-of-living measures.
But the parties are in a bind, because they must continue to appeal to the significant number of voters who will be considering who to vote for right up until election day itself.
Skip the queue
While many people will be tempted to vote early, the Australian Electoral Commission’s website reminds us there are some conditions for pre-poll voting.
You can only vote early, either in person or by post, if on polling day you are:
travelling or unable to leave your workplace to vote
sick or due to give birth, or caring for someone who is
a person with a disability, or caring for someone who is
in prison serving a sentence of less than three years
prevented by religious beliefs from attending on election day
a silent elector, or reasonably fearful for your safety or wellbeing.
Aware of the temptation to pre-poll, the AEC says people who wait until election day won’t have to battle long queues. In fact, 75% of them will be in and out of the polling place in under 15 minutes.
The AEC says it’s worked out ways to minimise queuing on election day.
Voter beware
The numbers don’t lie. More and more voters are keen to participate in the democratic process before election day.
However, voting early could be a double-edged sword. It may be convenient, but there is always the risk candidates or parties could say or do something that antagonises a voter after they have cast their ballot.
As there is no way to withdraw an original vote or cast a new one if they change their minds, early voters are taking a risk.
Moreover, by voting early, people may be missing out on the sausage sizzle, the craft stands, and the bake sales that many communities hold on voting day. These election day traditions raise funds and add a special community feeling to the ultimate exercise of democracy – choosing a government.
Zareh Ghazarian 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 Guy C. Charlton, Adjunct Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Associate Professor, University of New England
You might have recently received voting papers for your local body elections. Going by our historically low participation rates, many of those envelopes will remain unopened.
This is a shame, because New Zealand’s local authorities face major financial challenges that affect nearly everyone. Only by increasing democratic engagement and giving ratepayers more reason to vote will real change happen.
Local Government New Zealand recently estimated an extra NZ$11 billion is needed over the next seven years to meet unexpected cost increases. The credit rating agency S&P Global has downgraded 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations, and given negative outlooks to three more councils.
The auditor-general reported in February that inflation has driven up the costs of construction, insurance and debt servicing. This is putting pressure on operational expenses and capital improvements at the same time as demand for council services is increasing.
The central government problem
Central government supports councils primarily through grants, subsidies, shared revenue (such as from road taxes) and development contributions. But its main response to the financial stress now being felt has been to urge local governments to focus on “core tasks”, not “pet” and “vanity” projects.
To that end, the government has introduced annual council benchmark reports that will compare rates, debt levels, capital spending breakdowns and road conditions. It is also amending in the Local Government Act to remove references to the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities.
It also wants to encourage inter-council cooperation with its Regional Deals Strategic Framework and streamline resource management requirements that it believes hinder economic development.
It is unlikely these measures will be enough. Government contributions to councils have averaged around 10% of local government operating income since 2000, not enough to meet increasing legal and infrastructure costs.
Other OECD countries transfer significantly higher proportions of central taxes to local governments. In New Zealand, this might include central government reimbursing taxes and other revenues it captures due to local government activity (such the GST on rates).
The government could also pick up local costs that have national benefits, such as water and wastewater capacity at prime international tourism destinations. But more fundamental reform is needed.
Councils’ operational budgets are static while demand for their services are increasing. Getty Images
Rates aren’t enough
At the moment, councils generate about 80% of their income from general and targeted rates, with the rest coming from things such as parking fines, amenities fees and investment interest.
This heavy reliance of rates is clearly inadequate to pay for local operational and infrastructure costs. This is despite recent court decisions giving councils more leeway to set, raise and target rates.
But to really make a difference, councils must also be given the legal authority to raise additional revenue themselves. This could include excise taxes on petrol and visitor accommodation, sales taxes and stamp duties.
As the recently repealed Auckland regional fuel tax demonstrated, excise taxes can be an effective way to raise funds for specific activities. The roughly $780 million it raised helped pay for the Eastern Busway ($272 million) and new commuter train cars ($330 million).
Room or lodging levies on overnight stays in hotels, motels, campgrounds, Airbnb and other short-term visitor rentals can help mitigate the impacts of tourism on local infrastructure and services.
In the Queenstown Lakes district, for example, a 5% levy on the estimated $413 million spent on accommodation in 2023 would generate $210 million over ten years, about 30% of the $756 million cost attributed to tourism.
Councils could also add a small extra levy on GST in their regions, a common practice in many large American cities and counties. Or they could apply a stamp duty on things like real estate transactions as Australia does.
Stamp duties might be a political non-starter in New Zealand. But what are known as “tax incremental districts” could be an effective way of offsetting the infrastructure and public facilities costs of new developments or economic revitalisation projects.
These schemes work by applying incremental increases in rates during the private development of an area. Done properly, they can be useful in brownfield redevelopment sites, as well as speeding up housing developments on city fringes.
Reinvigorating local democracy
New taxes are rarely popular, and selling the idea of local governments levying other sources of revenue to already stretched ratepayers will be difficult. But infrastructure and other costs cannot simply be ignored and passed down to future generations.
On top of more funding from central government, local authorities need the flexibility to creatively address their financial and infrastructure needs. The decision on whether and how they do this ultimately resides with ratepayers and electors.
Having more authority would also create more accountability in local government, reinvigorate local democracy and encourage overall policy innovation.
Without greater funding authority and fewer constraints on their activities, elected community representatives risk becoming mere administrators of central government policy rather than truly reflecting and shaping their electorates.
The author thanks Avi Charlton Diesch, a post-graduate student in finance at the University of Hong Kong, for his help with the preparation of this article.
Guy C. Charlton 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.
Credit rating agencies like S&P Global and Fitch have an outsized influence on the economic fortunes of developing countries. Their assessments shape investor perceptions, influence borrowing costs, and ultimately shape a country’s development path. With many African countries now issuing bonds in global markets amid falling levels of official development assistance (ODA), their role is coming under increasing scrutiny.
The major credit rating agencies exist to opine on the likelihood that a debtor (say, a country) will repay their creditors on time and in full. They are rated on a sliding scale. Whenever a rating agency believes that a debtor will not meet their obligations, they are obliged to put that debtor into a ‘default’ rating. This means that the debtor can no longer access private financing.
The negative role of rating agencies has been felt in other ways too. For example, threats of downgrades have also led to developing countries steering away from seeking debt relief under a recently introduced G20-initiated debt treatment programme. The reason is that getting help would mean that sovereign debtors have to restructure their debts. But credit rating agencies have warned that doing this will likely lead countries being given a ‘default’ rating.
As a result, no rated country has applied for debt relief through the G20. This has been called a ‘credit rating impasse’.
Change needs to happen on two fronts: the building of credit rating capability in the Global South, combined with shoring up capacity in countries in an effort to rebalance existing relationships with rating agencies.
As a researcher who has looked closely at the working of rating agencies, I would argue that South Africa’s 2024–25 G20 Presidency presents a rare opportunity to push for more equitable reforms. It also provides a platform to spotlight African-led initiatives that are already making progress.
The aim is not to ensure every country receives a top-tier credit rating. Rather, it is to ensure that all countries have the capacity, knowledge, and tools to engage in the rating process on fair terms.
Alternatives
Among the boldest reform efforts so far is the establishment of the African Credit Rating Agency spearheaded by the African Union. The agency aims to deliver fairer, more contextually grounded credit assessments of African sovereigns.
Structured as a specialised agency owned by AU member states and funded through a mix of regional support and service revenue, the agency is a tangible step toward rating independence. Naturally, there are challenges. These include legitimacy, credibility with global investors, generating the necessary capital to appropriately invest in research and credit analysis, and blowback if and when it will have to downgrade.
Its creation is rooted in dissatisfaction with the big three agencies. But it’s also inspired by parallel developments in other regions, such as China’s own domestic rating ecosystem.
Though still in development, the proposed African agency represents the most advanced reform effort in the credit rating space from a Global South perspective.
But building this institutional capacity is only one piece of a larger puzzle. For many countries, support is urgently needed to engage more effectively with the existing system.
Expertise mismatch
The lag in expertise and experience on the part of countries in the global south is understandable: sovereign debt trading has been around since the 19th Century. The first Eurobond was issued in 1963. In contrast, many African nations only began issuing Eurobonds in the late 1990s, with Tunisia being the first in 1997.
At present, that expertise is often provided by ‘credit rating advisory’ teams embedded within the Investment Banks arranging a country’s bond sale – typically offered at no cost. There is a valid perception that this advice is not independent.
One way to close the gap is through independent credit rating-related capacity building. Done well, it can empower developing countries to engage with credit rating agencies on a more equal footing, improve the quality of credit interactions, and make informed decisions in a market that often prioritises investor interests over national development goals.
A few initiatives are well underway.
The African Union’s Africa Peer Review Mechanism , in partnership with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, has been offering tailored, hands-on support. This includes technical workshops, advocacy against problematic ratings, and the publication of the ‘Africa Sovereign Credit Rating Review’, a regular report that helps member states track trends and identify areas for improvement.
Building on this, the UNDP Africa and AfriCatalyst recently launched the ‘Credit Ratings Initiative’. This includes an innovative web platform, a panel of former rating analysts known as the ‘Concilium’, and a community of practice to share knowledge.
Early pilots with East African countries have already made an impact, showing how independent, neutral advice can boost sovereigns’ technical understanding and strategic engagement with rating agencies.
These efforts underscore an important lesson: while long-term reform is crucial, short-term, practical tools can have an immediate and meaningful effect.
This is a promising start. But there is room to go further. South Africa could use its leadership role to champion the establishment of a global credit rating capacity building initiative. Such a move would align with its development priorities, position Africa as a leader in financial reform, and create a blueprint for global action.
Crucially, this would not be just another technical fix. It would be a shift in the power dynamics of global finance – from crisis response to structural empowerment. As the U.S. prepares to take over the G20 Presidency next, South Africa’s advocacy could lay the groundwork for a broader coalition committed to fairer financing systems.
Daniel Cash 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.
Depending on who becomes prime minister, parents now paying $10 a day for child care could continue to do so and many additional parents could access affordable day care in the future due to plans to expand. Or, the cap on child-care fees could be eliminated in a return to market provision of child-care services, in at least some provinces.
Both leaders have said they want to preserve affordable child care but have presented their proposals in significantly different ways.
As an economist with specialization in the economics of child care and early childhood education, I believe looking beneath surface statements reveals major differences that would affect parents, children and their families.
Strengthening the $10-a-day policy
The Liberal Party’s newly released platform highlights the protection and strengthening of the $10-a-day early learning and child care system. The platform promises the building of 100,000 new child-care spaces by 2031, better compensation for child-care educators, the expansion of child care in public institutions and a stronger link between housing development and child care when housing is supported by federal funds.
In the Liberal leadership debate, Carney said we “absolutely have to keep in place the progress that the government has made on crucial things such as child care….” The Liberal platform affirms this, takes credit for introducing the existing system and notes: “In just a few short years, this program has become a core part of Canada’s social infrastructure.”
Since January, among the provinces and territories, all but Alberta and Saskatchewan have approved or tentatively approved five-year extensions to early learning and child-care funding agreements with the federal government.
Those extensions are key, as they represent commitments from 11 provinces and territories to use the federal government’s additional $37 billion to continue building the $10 a day program through 2031.
However, he did discuss ideas and major criticisms in a March 25 campaign stop in Vaughan, Ont.
He said: “We all believe that there should be more affordable child care in this country.” But then he criticized the current system as “bureaucratic” and “top down,” saying that “provinces can decide how to deliver those services on the front line with more flexibility and freedom for parents, provinces, and providers….”
Clearly his “affordable child care” will not look anything like the burgeoning $10-a-day system.
Poilievre’s wording is very similar to that of a new lobby organization of for-profit child care operators.
The group calls for a shift from “federally controlled funding to no-strings-attached childcare funding for the provinces …” It also calls for a “funding-follows-the-family approach” which they believe will encourage parental and operator choice and minimize bureaucratic administrative costs and red tape.
The Poilievre position, then, is an update from former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s policy proposals during the 2021 federal election.
It harkens back to the cash-for-care approach Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had in place from 2006 to 2015. Conservatives prefer and encourage the provision of cash, a tax credit or voucher that parents can spend on child care.
Such a Conservative approach is known as demand-side funding rather than supply-side funding — giving parents money to pay some of their child-care costs instead of funding child-care providers to ensure the services are available for families.
Examining Conservative criticisms
The “flexibility and freedom” that come with demand-side funding would mean removing conditions such as a guaranteed parent fee of $10 a day, targets for expansion of licensed child care, growth primarily by public and non-profit provision, and requirements for public financial accountability, from the federal funding agreements with the provinces and territories.
There are substantial problems with Poilievre’s suggestion of overhauling the $10-a-day program. First, his March 25 criticisms are flawed:
He said “120,000 fewer children have daycare spaces than when the program was created,” but Statistics Canada surveys show a growth in attendance at child-care centres of an additional 177,900 children from late 2020 to the first half of 2023.
Poilievre said “child care now is worse than when the Liberals took office.” In fact, the main indicators of availability and affordability of child care are much better. Between 2015, when the Liberals took office, and 2023, the number of child care spaces grew by 426,203 to a total of 1,627,211 total licensed spaces. Child-care affordability is also greatly improved. By 2023, child-care fees had dropped by between 40 per cent and 75 per cent nearly everywhere across Canada, varying by geography and child age. As a proportion of after-tax family income, parents’ average spending on child care in January 2025 was less than one third of what it was before 2021, declining from just under 16 per cent to five per cent.
Poilievre said “most of the money has been consumed by bureaucracy.” In fact, child-care fees have dropped to an average of $10 a day (or less) in
Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland/Labrador, and all the remaining provinces have lowered parent fees substantially.
This would not have been possible if “most of the money was consumed by bureaucracy,” something easily seen in readily available public data on how child-care funds are spent.
Demand-side funding solutions
Demand-side funding solutions with no cap on fees would be a dream for private corporations looking to enter a Canadian child-care market rich with public funds but a nightmare for cash-strapped parents who are desperate for child care.
Australia is the poster child for generous demand-side funding of child care.
In the Australian model, parents spend funds however they like, and there is no restriction on the fees providers can charge and no requirement for financial reporting. Funds are paid directly to child-care providers from the government on behalf of parents and corporate child-care thrives. Under this funding model, Australia has seen a sixfold increase in child-care fees since the early 1990s, twice as much as the increase in consumer prices.
It’s time to redouble efforts to provide affordable, quality child care for all who need it rather than to abandon these major combined efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments to build a dependable and affordable child-care system.
Gordon Cleveland receives funding for expenses from an SSHRC project “Re-imagining care/work policies/Réinventer les politiques soins/travail”. He is a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. He volunteers for Building Blocks for Child Care. He is a research associate with L’Équipe de recherche Qualité contextes éducatifs de la petite enfance.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Horen Greenford, Lecturer and postdoctoral researcher in Ecological Economics and Climate Policy, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University
With a federal election on the horizon, economic policy is once again taking centre stage. Yet missing from the national debate is a serious reckoning with the failures of neoliberalism and the urgent need for alternatives.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, with his experience across banking and global finance, is one figure who could potentially steer that shift. Carney’s career, spanning Morgan Stanley, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and Brookfield Asset Management, has exemplified his competence within the bounds of economic orthodoxy.
As the Bank of Canada’s governor, Carney pre-emptively cut interest rates to cushion the blow of the 2008 financial crisis. Standard measures like interest rate cuts and quantitative easing are meant to keep economies afloat during downturns. While necessary, these steps remained squarely within the bounds of conventional economic thinking.
Today, however, those old tricks aren’t enough. The twin crises of climate collapse and socioeconomic inequality demand bolder policy and braver leadership from policymakers.
MMT scholars argue that countries that issue their own currency, like Canada, have monetary sovereignty. These governments don’t need to rely on bond markets for funding; instead, they can create money directly through public spending. And, when they do sell debt, there’s never a shortage of demand for it.
From this perspective, the real constraint isn’t money, but productive capacity: materials, energy and labour. Public debt is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it “owed” to anyone.
MMT also argues the “tax and spend” perspective is backwards — taxes are not needed to fund public spending. In its view, governments spend first, then tax to remove money from circulation to keep inflation under control.
Inflation risk stems not from government spending, but from economic over-demand or supply constraints. During periods of low growth, spending is not just safe — it’s essential, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inflation during the pandemic was driven predominantly by supply chain disruptions and gas price spikes, not overspending. Strategic taxation can be used to curb demand and reduce inequality when inflation emerges.
MMT’s job guarantee
The hallmark policy of MMT is a job guarantee — a public option for employment that would employ anyone wanting to work. This would effectively end structural unemployment while improving conditions for those employed in the private sector through competition.
Such an initiative would help unlock productivity needed to revitalize and decarbonize housing, transport, energy and other critical infrastructure.
Yet instead of embracing such ideas, centrist parties like the Canadian Liberal Party and United Kingdom’s Labour Party cling to outdated concerns over “fiscal responsibility,” echoing debates that have been outdated since the end of the gold standard in the 1970s.
The cost of playing it safe
Carney appears to have retreated into political caution and has avoided challenging fiscal conservatism in any substantive way. Immediately upon taking office, he capitulated to misleading narratives promoted by politicians like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and cut the consumer carbon price.
According to the government’s own analysis, only the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians stood to lose from a modest increase in the inclusion rate for taxing unearned income.
During the Liberal leadership race, Carney advocated for using public investment to attract private capital during a CBC News interview. Sidestepping a direct answer about whether he’d balance the overall budget, he instead committed to balancing “operational spending.” When pressed, he said he would run deficits when necessary to “invest [in] and grow Canada’s economy.”
Carney’s approach frames public spending as a way to mobilize private capital, rather than as a driver of public-led economic transformation. True to his background, his language casts the government as a shrewd investor, not a driver of structural change.
Carney also framed public investment as “borrowing,” which MMT clarifies is a misnomer: unlike a household or a business, a currency-issuing government doesn’t need to borrow in the traditional sense and faces no risk of running out of its own currency.
A bolder path forward is needed
Canada needs more than cautious tweaks to the status quo. A climate jobs program, like a Youth Climate Corps, could guarantee well-paid, meaningful work in communities across the country for anyone ready to contribute. Public opinion is already there: more than half of Canadians support a climate corps.
Public-sector competition in industries like housing and renewable energy could keep private firms efficient and accountable. During World War II, engineer and businessman C.D. Howe became Minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply and oversaw the creation of 28 Crown corporations that drove wartime production.
Canada already has a Crown corporation mandated to support affordable housing: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This agency could be expanded to not only finance, but also tender contracts and build housing. It could be a federal landlord, with long-term goals of community management and ownership.
The more affordable units kept out of an increasingly profit-driven market, the more accessible housing will be. This would stabilize the market and provide a floor (and roof) for affordability.
Some MMT scholars and social movements have even called for a homes guarantee — a federally-funded program to guarantee a place to live for anyone squeezed out of the housing market.
Critics might say bold investment is politically infeasible. But is it? Or could one of Canada’s federal parties champion policies that inspire instead of capitulate? Traditionally, the NDP would pick up this mantle, but they ceded their place as the progressive vanguard after former NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promised to balance the budget in 2015.
The real risk isn’t ambitious reform, but relying on outdated tricks in a world that demands new solutions.
Daniel Horen Greenford receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Canadians watched the two leaders’ debates unfold last week in Montréal. The debates, and this election, occur at a pivotal moment in history. Canadians go to the polls as the future of global democracy and governance, and in fact the very independence of the country, is in the balance.
In crucial ways, the debates failed to meet the moment — and therefore will likely be forgotten as Canadians vote cast their ballots in a week. Unlike a past debate that focused on Canadian sovereignty between John Turner and Brian Mulroney in 1988, this one featured few knockout punches or memorable moments.
Shadows of the past
In the weeks prior to the debates, observers drew comparisons to that momentous English-language leaders’ showdown 37 years ago. That debate laid out a clear question for voters: Are you in favour of entering a free-trade agreement with the United States?
Prime Minister Mulroney was supportive of the agreement, while Liberal Leader Turner was sharply opposed, fearing for the country’s independence.
In the end, both Mulroney and Turner had a point. In the ensuing decades, free trade with the U.S. has brought both prosperity and dependence on the country as the Canadian economy became ever more deeply intertwined with that of the United States.
A hinge point in history
In 2025, we face an even more pivotal moment. The global order is shifting.
Given the gravity of the moment however, we heard comparatively little during the debates about how Canada must respond at this hinge point in history as Canadians adapt to a predictably unpredictable future.
There was some talk during the debate of Canada trying to reach the (Trump-demanded) NATO military target for military spending, but nothing about the fact that the future of the alliance is uncertain. European states are openly questioning the credibility of American support in the event of an attack and European leaders discussing defence strategies without American involvement for the first time since the Second World War.
It’s clear from such silences on the debate stage that Canadian voters, journalists, debate moderators and politicians alike are all still coming to terms with the depth of change in the world around them.
The debate was filled with talk of pipelines, housing strategies and domestic law and order. In fact, neither debate was much different from those of the past 20 years.
That’s not to suggest domestic challenges don’t require substantive discussion and policy proposals. As I and others have argued, the populist anti-incumbent wave that we saw sweeping Canadian and global politics in recent years can be traced to the sense that a portion of the population — younger voters in particular — feel left behind and ignored.
Nonetheless, in focusing so heavily on domestic and not global threats, the debate verged at times on the parochial.
Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, for instance, tried to keep provincial jurisdiction and Québec’s interests top of mind. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s message, at its most effective, was that as the country turns to face new challenges, it cannot forget about the marginalized in Canadian society and abroad. Worthy points, but secondary to the larger moment.
Ultimately, the debate was dominated by the other two men on the stage with a real chance to govern the country next week: Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
The two appeared united in their passion for the country and pipelines, and share some other priorities, notably facilitating interprovincial economic integration.
Conservative base is divided
In other respects, the two leaders diverged significantly in their views. Of all the leaders, Carney was the most willing to discuss the Trump threat, including when he suggested in his closing English remarks that Trump is “trying to break us so the U.S. can own us.”
For the majority of the debates, however, the Liberal leader focused primarily on the economic threat. He argued that the country must look away from the U.S., and instead build inward with investment in housing and energy at home, and build outward by identifying more reliable markets and allies abroad.
Poilievre’s messaging was more nuanced, moving in different directions to suit different audiences. No doubt this is because the country’s Conservative voting base is itself deeply divided between mainstream conservatives who share their fellow Canadians’ concerns about Trump and a populist faction that tends to identify with the MAGA movement in numerous ways.
In attempting to square that circle, Poilievre has signalled strong opposition to Trump and his tariffs — a point he repeatedly discussed during the debate — and called for measures to enhance Canadian productivity, notably in the energy sector.
At the same time, however, he endorsed other policies that evoke aspects of Trump’s own political agenda, something he largely avoided mentioning during the debates. Notable among are Poilievre’s promised war on “woke” culture. While not discussed in detail during the debates, disruptive questions from right-wing media outlets following the French debate illustrated just how close to the surface such issues remain.
The ‘new abnormal’
In the absence of a significant gaffe, knockout blow or other dramatic twist, the debates are unlikely to change many minds, and seem likely to soon fade from memory.
Initial post-debate polling suggests as much. Anyone leaning one way or another heard enough to affirm their views as they tuned into the debates, and nothing to make them question their choice.
Answers to larger questions about how Canada should move forward in this emergent new global order, amid daunting new threats to peace and democracy, remain only hinted at. Whoever wins the election, those questions will continue to be asked with increased urgency in the coming years.
Stewart Prest 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 – UK – By Bronagh Ann McShane, Research Fellow, VOICES, School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College Dublin
Pope Francis appointed more women to leadership roles in the Vatican than any pope before him. He challenged entrenched traditions within the Roman Catholic church to bring women into positions once deemed categorically off limits by an institution historically dominated by men.
A prime example is Sister Raffaella Petrini, who became the first woman to serve as secretary general of the Governorate of Vatican City State – the executive of Vatican City State. This is the highest ranking role ever held by a woman in the Catholic church.
Christianity’s early years tell a more complex story about women’s roles than one might expect. Women within early Christian communities held leadership positions. They were deacons, prophets and patrons of religious communities. However, as the church became more institutionalised, male leadership solidified its authority, marginalising women. By the medieval period, women wielded spiritual influence as mystics, abbesses, and theologians, but their power was largely confined to religious devotion rather than governance. This division reinforced the patriarchal structures of the church. Women could influence faith but not church administration or doctrine.
By the early modern period, the exclusion of women from church leadership became even more pronounced. The counter-reformation reinforced clerical patriarchy, centralising power in male clergy. Once powerful abbesses saw their authority curtailed as the Vatican tightened control. During the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, women were active in education, missionary work, and social justice efforts but were systematically excluded from shaping church policies or theological debates.
The second Vatican council (1962–1965) acknowledged the importance of women in the church and expanded their roles in lay ministries. Yet, despite recognising their contributions, the council stopped short of granting women real authority. They remained on the margins of power in the church despite the broader social changes of the time. While secular institutions responded to calls for reform in response to second-wave feminism, the Catholic church remained largely resistant.
Pope Francis’s reforms
Against this historical backdrop, Francis’s reforms were both a step forward and a reminder of the church’s persistent structural barriers. His first major initiative to explore greater female inclusion came in 2016, when he established a commission to study the historical role of female deacons and the possibility of reinstating the role of deacon for women. However, the commission faced internal divisions and, in 2019, Francis acknowledged it had been unable to reach a consensus.
A new commission was established in 2020 with a broader international and theological representation. Although the issue remains under consideration, and the Vatican announced in 2024 that the commission would resume its work, Francis repeatedly reaffirmed that priestly ordination is “reserved for men”.
Francis did, however, expand opportunities for women’s participation in church governance in other ways. In 2021, he issued Spiritus Domini, formally changing canon law to allow women to serve as lectors and acolytes (liturgical roles traditionally reserved for men). While this did not grant them clerical status, it acknowledged women’s long-standing contributions in these roles.
Francis also increased women’s visibility in Vatican leadership. In an unprecedented move, he appointed Sister Nathalie Becquart as an under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, making her the first woman to hold voting rights in the Synod. Similarly, in 2022, he named several women to the Dicastery for Bishops, granting them a role in selecting new bishops. This is traditionally an exclusively male domain.
Before his death, Francis made further appointments demonstrating his commitment to integrating women into Church governance. In January 2025, he appointed Sister Simona Brambilla as the prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. She is the first woman to lead a major Vatican department.
This was followed by Sister Raffaella Petrini’s appointment as the highest-ranking woman in Vatican administration. As governor, she oversees the city’s infrastructure, institutions, and daily operations, a role traditionally held by male clergy. These appointments, once unthinkable, signal a cautious but notable shift in the church’s approach to female leadership.
Progress or symbolism?
While these reforms represent progress, the church’s core patriarchal structure is still intact and the issue of women’s ordination remains off the table. No matter how influential individual women become, they are still excluded from the highest echelons of clerical authority. The papacy, the College of Cardinals, and the priesthood remain exclusively male domains.
Pope Francis’s reforms followed a well-established pattern of slow, incremental change in the church’s approach to women’s leadership. The struggle over power, patriarchy, and women’s place in the Catholic church is far from over.
Francis led a period of reform, gradually opening doors once believed to be firmly shut. But following his death, the lasting impact of these changes is uncertain. It’s possible that his work marked the beginning of a transformative era. However, it’s also possible that his death concludes a chapter in church history that supported women’s leadership. It is up to Francis’s predecessor to decide which is true.
Bronagh Ann McShane 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.
The Liberals want to cement policies implemented by Justin Trudeau’s government, particularly the ban on assault-style weapons.
The Conservative Party of Canada, on the other hand, seems intent on avoiding the gun control issue, although Leader Pierre Poilievre has suggested he might weaken Canada’s firearm laws.
Since 2015, the Liberal Party has substantially strengthened Canada’s gun control laws.
In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-71, which enhanced background checks for purchasers. It also required retailers to keep records of firearm transactions. Following the April 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, the federal government prohibited several models of assault-style firearms.
Bill C-21, passed in 2024, codified a freeze on the sale and transfer of handguns. In addition, it increased penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking, and added offences concerning what are known as “ghost guns,” untraceable firearms assembled with components purchased either as a kit or as separate pieces. Bill C-21 also included new measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.
The Liberal Party’s 2025 platform does not propose introducing significant new gun control measures. Rather, the party pledges to defend and cement existing firearm laws. Carney accuses Poilievre of wanting to “import irresponsible, American-style gun laws” into Canada.
The Liberal platform promises “to keep assault-style firearms out of our communities,” while “respecting the longstanding traditions of hunting, including among Indigenous Peoples, and sport shooting.”
The Liberals will implement “an efficient gun buyback program for assault-style firearms.” They also promise that new models of firearms entering the Canadian market are classified “by the RCMP and not the gun industry.”
In addition, the Liberals promise to automatically revoke gun licences “for individuals convicted of violent offences, particularly those convicted of intimate partner violence offences, and those subject to protection orders.”
Other Liberal commitments include toughening oversight of the firearms licensing system and strongly enforcing measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.
Opposition party positions
The NDP says nothing about firearms in its platform, while the Bloc Québécois vaguely commits to continuing to demand better control of illegal and prohibited firearms.
The Conservative Party also largely avoids mentioning gun control. For example, on April 9, the party announced part of its criminal justice policy. It urges the adoption of a “three-strikes-and-you’re out” law. There was, however, no mention of the Conservatives’ proposed gun control platform.
The lack of a clear position seems designed to avoid entangling Poilievre in the thorny gun control issue. The Conservatives learned the dangers of promising to repeal popular gun control measures in the 2021 election. Erin O’Toole had secured the Conservative Party leadership by appealing to gun owners, and the party’s 2021 election platform promised to repeal the Liberal ban on assault-style firearms.
The Liberals drew attention to O’Toole’s promise, badly knocking the Conservatives off message for several days. O’Toole was forced to retreat from his commitment to repeal the ban. He instead promised the Conservatives would retain the ban until an independent “classification review” of firearms was completed.
Opponents of gun control responded by expressing a sense of betrayal.
In his review of the 2021 election, Canadian political scientist Faron Ellis found that O’Toole “compounded the damage when he had no definitive answers, appearing evasive or even deceitful, as the Liberals would repeatedly charge through to the end of the campaign.”
Liberals believe that the controversy over O’Toole’s gun control position helped them turn the tide and win the 2021 election. For Conservatives, the lesson of the 2021 election seems to be that they should avoid making clear promises about firearm policy.
Poilievre’s agenda
Poilievre has not been completely silent on the gun control issue. Prior to the election, he told a prominent gun control critic that he will repeal Liberal gun laws.
However, he has been less explicit during the election campaign. He has mentioned gun control at his rallies, but does not detail what a Conservative government would do. For example, at an event in Woolwich, Ont., on April 10, he promised to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab that targets our hunters and our sports shooters.”
It is unclear what exactly Poilievre means by his promise to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab.” Would the Conservatives again allow the purchase and transfer handguns? Would they eliminate the ban on assault-style rifles, thereby making firearms like the AR-15 widely available?
Being frank about his position would help avoid suggestions that Poilievre has an agenda to substantially alter Canada’s gun control laws.
R. Blake Brown 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.
