The Palau Media Council has condemned a political lawsuit against the publisher of the Island Times as an “assault on press freedom” with the Pacific country facing an election on Tuesday.
In a statement yesterday, the council added that the lawsuit, filed by Surangel and Sons Co. against Times publisher Leilani Reklai over her newspaper’s coverage of tax-related documents that surfaced on social media, was an attempt to undermine the accountability that was vital to democracy.
The statement also said the lawsuit raised “critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and freedom of the press.
“This lawsuit, combined with government’s statements endorsing that Island Times reported mis-information on its coverage of the tax related document and the decision to ban Island Times from Surangel and Sons [distribution] outlets, raises critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and the freedom of the press — both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society,” the statement said.
“The council sees this legal action as an assault on press freedom and an attempt to undermine the accountability that is vital to democracy.”
The statement said that Reklai, one of Palau’s senior journalists, was being targeted simply for reporting on documents that were already in the public domain.
“She did not originate the information but responsibly conveyed what these documents suggested, raising questions about the current administration’s narrative on corporate tax contributions,” the council said.
‘Journalistic duty’ “Reporting on such information is a journalistic duty to ensure transparency in tax policies and government incentives impacting the private sector.
“The Island Times, by publishing these documents, has provided a platform for clarifying public understanding of the new PGST tax law’s impact on major corporations and the actual tax contributions of Surangel and Sons.
“These issues are clearly within the public’s right to know, and the council emphasises that media plays a crucial role in reporting such findings and promoting informed debate.
The council said it stood in solidarity with Reklai and all journalists who strived to find and uphold the truth.
“In a healthy democracy, a free and open press is essential for informed citizens and responsible governance.”
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Charlie Shackleton, Professor & Research Chair in Interdisciplinary Science in Land and Natural Resource Use for Sustainable Livelihoods, Rhodes University
The springbok is best known, thanks to it being a name for sports teams.A Oosthuizen/iStock/Getty Images
Alongside a national flag, anthem and coat of arms, most countries have one or more plant and animal species that they designate as national symbols. The national animal of China, for example, is the giant panda, a nation-wide source of pride and diplomacy. Americans salute the bald eagle as a symbol of strength and freedom.
But how do South Africans relate to their official national symbols? Do they even know what they are? It’s a country with an enviable variety of ethnicities, cultures, languages, histories, landscapes and biodiversity. It’s also a country fractured by colonialism and apartheid.
South Africa is still in the process of building a unified and national identity as it moves beyond apartheid, an oppressive system of legislated racial division that formally ended with the advent of democracy in 1994.
The process of nation building includes developing a shared history, identity, pride and values of what it means to be South African. One dynamic in this process is the shaping of a collective identity around particular national icons, symbols, activities and personalities. The national anthem, flag, sports stars, artists and the like. Things that make citizens proud of their country and its people, despite a divided past.
King protea. Carol Phillips/iStock/Getty Images
Reflecting its mega-biodiversity status, South Africa boasts five national animal and plant symbols. These are the national animal (springbok), fish (galjoen), bird (blue crane), flower (king protea) and tree (real yellowwood). Yet, their usefulness in helping build a national identity depends on South Africans actually knowing what they are. Sadly, this seems not to be the case.
As environmental scientists we’re intrigued by the relationships between humans and nature. Environmental scholars Ondwela Tshikombeni, Monde Ntshudu and I recently conducted a study to find out how much South Africans know about the five biodiversity symbols. We found that only a tiny fraction could name all of them. The level of knowledge about them was generally low.
This indicates that these symbols can’t be effectively used to help build a common South African identity. Nor will they add value to biodiversity conservation campaigns in a time when the need to protect nature increases due to the impacts of human development and climate change.
National animals and plants
The process of choosing a species as a national symbol is different depending on the country and may even be contested. In Turkey, for example, the national animal is the grey wolf. It can be a symbol of pride or be rejected because it’s the controversial name of a rightwing political group.
Many national symbols are rooted in history and could stem from the emblems of the political, colonial or economic elites of the past. Or they may be more recent and based on lobbying by certain groups or even via public vote. Britain, for example, asked the public to choose a national bird. The robin won.
Galjoen. Biodiversity Heritage Library/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The first national animal to be used as a symbol in South Africa was the springbuck (or springbok), proposed in 1906 as a name for the country’s rugby team ahead of a tour of Europe. The most recent addition was the galjoen in 1992.
Our study
We surveyed 382 urban dwellers in four towns spanning three provinces: Mossel Bay, Kariega (formerly Uitenhage), Gcuwa (formerly Butterworth) and Kokstad. In each town we set out to interview 25 adults across low-, medium- and high-income areas and the central business district.
Blue crane. Knowsley Hall/Wikimedia Commons
As part of the survey, we asked people to name each of the five national biodiversity symbols. After that, we presented them with photos of four different species (one of which was the national one) and asked them to correctly identify the national species.
What we found
Only 11 of the respondents (3%) could name all five symbols, while almost half (48%) could not correctly name a single one. The most widely known were the springbok (40%) and the king protea (40%), perhaps because they correspond to the names of national sporting teams. The blue crane was mentioned by only 16% of the respondents and the galjoen (8%) and yellowwood (6%) fared even worse.
The numbers were slightly better when respondents were asked to identify each species from a photo of four choices – 58% identified the protea, 51% the blue crane, 45% the springbok, 26% the galjoen and 16% the real yellowwood.
Real yellowwood. Abu Shawka/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
To benchmark these knowledge levels, we also asked a few questions about the national flag and coat of arms. Only eight people knew the meaning of the phrase at the base of the coat of arms (ǃke e꞉ǀxarraǁke, meaning “diverse people unite” in the |Xam language of the country’s original inhabitants). Only 29% correctly knew that the Y-shape in the middle of the national flag was green. This indicates that the low knowledge of national symbols is not limited to just biodiversity symbols.
What can be done about it
It’s clear that a great deal more effort is needed to popularise the national biodiversity symbols if they’re to be used to help shape a national identity in South Africa. They could be promoted in schools where other national symbols, like the flag and anthem, are common.
The South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture could promote them during September’s heritage month celebrations. They could engage the public by popularising their names in the different official languages of the country and their roles in folklore and indigenous knowledge. They could also be featured in national and international tourism promotions.
Ondwela Tshikombeni and Monde Ntshudu contributed to this article
Charlie Shackleton received funding from the National Research Foundation under the SARChI Chairs programme for this work.
There is some disagreement among legal practitioners and scholars about whether corporations have duties under international law.
Many argue that only states are bound by international law, and it is those states which are obliged to regulate how businesses operate within their borders. Corporations have only a voluntary responsibility to avoid committing human rights violations through their operations.
I have been doing research in the area of corporate accountability for human rights violations since 2006. My most recent paper looks at the role of multinational corporations (multinationals) in benefiting from and perpetuating structural poverty in the global south.
I argue that international law can no longer exempt corporations from liability for human rights violations, including those arising from poverty. Under certain circumstances, corporations should have duties under international law to ensure human rights are fulfilled. I argue that this is particularly true when it comes to socio-economic rights such as the rights to housing, education, food, water and healthcare.
International human rights law must be developed to impose duties directly on multinational corporations to alleviate poverty in the developing countries where they operate.
This is not an absolute duty – it would only arise in certain circumstances and for specific periods of time, as I show in my paper.
Poverty and corporations
Some estimate that as many as 1.3 billion people live in poverty – more than 10% of the world’s population, the vast majority in the global south.
Poverty is also deadly. It is estimated that at least 21,300 people die every day as a result of poverty and inequality. Poverty is a human rights violation, affecting the rights to dignity, life, food and water.
Businesses have a long history of profiting from human rights abuses. Finance and transport companies have acknowledged ties to the slave trade. European banks reportedly assisted South Africa’s apartheid government to procure arms.
Even when they are not directly responsible for human rights violations, multinational corporations may be complicit. Multinationals based in the global north tend to exploit developing countries for their cheap labour, natural resources and weak regulatory frameworks. In other words, corporations benefit from poverty.
International law
In 2005, Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. He developed the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This framework adopts the position that only states are subjects and have duties under international human rights law.
The UN guiding principles are organised around three pillars, known as Protect, Respect and Remedy. The first pillar relates to states’ obligations to uphold human rights. It includes the duty to regulate businesses to ensure they do not violate rights through their operations. The second pillar refers to corporations’ responsibility to respect human rights. This is voluntary and not a legal obligation. The third pillar ensures that victims of human rights violations have access to effective remedies.
This framework relies on three factors: states which have the interests of their citizens at heart, corporations complying with human rights standards, and effective remedial systems. If all three work together, then the UN guiding principles can address corporate accountability for rights violations.
In practice, however, this is not the case. Many states, particularly those in the developing world with high levels of poverty, rely on foreign investment. This creates a power imbalance when negotiating with large multinational corporations. Multinationals are able to demand favourable investment conditions, including relaxing laws that might protect human rights.
Under the UN guiding principles, if states do not impose obligations on corporations to comply with human rights, they do not have such obligations.
Next steps
Not all corporations should have the same duties as states. I propose a set of factors that would determine when a corporation might have a duty under international human rights law to fulfil socio-economic rights. These factors are:
the extent of the violation
the position or vulnerability of the victim
the urgency of the situation
whether the corporation is the only actor that can fulfil the right.
For example, let us imagine a scenario in which a company operates a mine in the Central African Republic. It has built a hospital for its workers and management. Surrounding the mining operations are indigent communities who resided in the area before the operations began.
One day, a child from one of the settlements is knocked over by a car. Her injuries are not life-threatening, but they are severe and the child is in terrible pain. The closest hospital is the mine-owned private hospital. There is a public hospital, but it is far away and travelling there would take time and be costly. The child’s family rushes her to the mine’s hospital for emergency treatment. Does the hospital have a legal duty to admit the child and pay for her treatment?
Applying a combination of the factors, the answer is yes. The child is vulnerable by virtue of her age and poverty, the situation is urgent, and the mine hospital is the only entity that can fulfil the right under the circumstances.
Using this framework, I argue that international human rights law should be developed to mitigate the harm of poverty in the global south, by imposing duties on corporations that benefit from poverty. Some corporations have a perverse incentive to keep communities poor. International law has a role to play in overturning this state of affairs.
Ultimately, my proposal seeks to review what we think of as a fair and just economy. Nothing will change if only states have obligations under international law. The global economic market is neither free nor fair. It has created the most severe human rights violations of our age. International human rights law must address this.
Bonita Meyersfeld has received funding from the National Research Foundation as part of her NRF rating.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.
Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.
Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.
Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”
On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.
Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?
Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza Video: Democracy Now!
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.
I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.
In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.
And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.
The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.
No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.
And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.
I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?
You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.
And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.
And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.
But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.
And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.
But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.
What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.
In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?
But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.
But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.
The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.
Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.
And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.
And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.
Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?
And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.
But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.
There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.
But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.
Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.
Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.
And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.
And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.
What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.
In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.
And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.
The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.
But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.
I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”
And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.
I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.
When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.
I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Over the weekend, the Albanese government announced radical changes to student loans, which would kick in after the next federal election.
Three million Australians with student debt could see their balances cut by 20%. The remaining debt would be repaid under a new system, with no compulsory repayments for people earning less than A$67,000 a year. Both changes require parliamentary approval.
The changes will apply to everyone with a student debt, including all HELP (formerly HECS), vocational education and Australian apprenticeship support loans, as well as other student support loans.
People with student debt would undoubtedly benefit from the proposed changes. But they come with a hefty price tag and some disadvantages.
What are the proposed cuts to student debt?
As of June 30 this year, Australia’s higher education student debt totalled about $75.1 billion – although this is soon set to drop by about $3 billion. Legislation to partially reverse recent indexation to debts will go to the Senate later this month.
However, staying with the $75 billion, a 20% cut would be about $15 billion.
Using the government’s figures, someone with the average HELP debt of $27,600 would see around $5,520 cut from their HELP loans next year.
Vocational education students owed $8.4 billion as of June 30 2024. Their balances would reduce by about $1.7 billion under the changes.
Based on previous student support loan data, this debt is more than $3 billion. The changes would see it drop by about $600 million.
These reductions total $17.3 billion compared to the government’s estimate of $16 billion. But the upcoming indexation changes may explain this difference.
Repayments set to change
These changes have two important elements: the income at which repayments start and how repayments are calculated.
There was a noted outcry earlier this year when the cost of an arts degree hit $50,000 for 2025.
No compulsory repayments if you earn under $67,000
With parliament’s approval, for 2025-26 compulsory repayments on student loans would not start until the debtor was earning $67,000. This is up from about $56,000.
This would help a significant number of Australians. In 2023-24 more than 400,000 debtors had incomes between $50,000 and $70,000.
Changes to how repayments are calculated
Another significant change is to how repayments are calculated. Currently, when a debtor’s income reaches one of 18 income levels they repay a higher percentage, based on all their income.
This can produce strange results. Take a graduate earning $62,850 a year. They are in the 1% of income repayment rate, so they owe the Australian Taxation Office $628.50 in HELP repayments. But if their income goes up by $1 to $62,851 they enter the 2% repayment bracket, and owe the tax office $1,257. So a $1 pay increase would reduce the graduate’s take home pay by more than $600.
Under the government’s proposal, repayments would be calculated on income above a threshold, ignoring all income below the first threshold.
The new system would start with a 15% repayment rate at incomes between $67,000 and $124,999. Income at $125,000 or above would have a 17% repayment rate.
So, take a graduate on $70,000 a year. Under the current system, they will repay 2.5% of all their income, which is $1,750. Under the proposed system their repayments will be calculated only on the $3,000 difference between $67,000 and $70,000. This means they pay 15% of $3,000 or $450.
But those earning $180,000 plus will repay more student debt each year due to the new system. This is not a large group.
Of the 1.16 million people who made a HELP repayment in 2021-22, all but 16,000 earned less than $180,000.
The cost of an arts degree is set to reach $50,000 in 2025, amid growing concerns over study costs. rongyiquan/Shutterstock
There are some disadvantages
The downside of reduced annual repayments is longer repayment periods and more indexation of HELP balances.
People who want to repay more quickly can make voluntary repayments, which have increased significantly in recent years. But most people take the default option of compulsory repayments only.
While people who currently hold debt will see their repayment times reduced after the 20% cut to their balance, future borrowers won’t have this benefit.
Given the pattern of recent announcements, it would not be surprising if the government also announced reduced student contributions for future borrowers.
But it is also surprising the government has been stalling for two years on the high cost of arts degrees, set to hit almost $17,000 a year next year. These high fees should have been reduced long ago.
The cost to government
The 20% reduction in student debt balances will also come at a very significant cost to government and taxpayers.
This will not be the full $16 billion they have announced, since that includes debt that is not expected to be repaid anyway.
For higher education debt, the government actuary estimates 24% of the debt outstanding as of June 30 this year will not be repaid. Even so, a 20% cut to the $57.1 billion “good” debt would still cost $11.4 billion.
Cutting vocational education debt by 20% would add around another $1 billion to the cost, after deducting debt that won’t be repaid. Debts for student income support tend to have high bad debt rates, but the 20% cut for them would also add to the government’s expenditure.
The government will also incur further costs from slowing down future repayments.
Is this the best way?
The last few years have highlighted how stressful and damaging high levels of student debt can be for younger Australians.
And as Labor looks ahead to the next federal poll, reducing individuals’ debts and repayments could be a useful election selling point.
However, the Albanese govenrment’s plan comes with a high price tag and the priorities may not be entirely right. Managing future debt, such as by reversing fee hikes under the Job-ready Graduates program, is as important as reducing old debt.
Andrew Norton 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 Qantas upgrades affair has turned from a missile targeted at Anthony Albanese to a cluster bomb hitting MPs on all sides.
On Sunday, Education Minister Jason Clare took the opportunity provided by an interview on Sky about the government’s proposal to slash 20% off student debt to relate, in detail, why he requested a Qantas upgrade in 2019 for a private trip to Singapore.
He’d had an operation on his leg. He was catching up with his family already overseas. He contacted someone – he’s forgotten who – in Qantas.
On the other side of politics, the Nationals’ Bridget McKenzie, who’s been in hot pursuit of Albanese over his upgrades, is yet to produce full details of her own situation. She’s asked the airlines for the information.
Then there’s the Liberals’ Paul Fletcher, who apparently likes to book economy on flights of under two hours. He’s had 69 upgrades over almost 15 years.
It’s important to remember what the rules are. Parliamentarians in their work are entitled to fly business class on domestic trips. In some cases, they choose to fly economy on short hauls and business on longer ones.
In the wake of the ongoing revelations, surely it is time to fix the rules. One obvious change should be a ban on upgrades for all personal travel, domestic or overseas, by parliamentarians. If MPs do not want the discomfort of economy class on holidays or other excursions, they should pay to avoid it.
Another change should be that the minister for transport, and the shadow minister, should decline upgrades for their official travel. That avoids any suggestion of being influenced by such perks.
This parliamentary week is devoted, in the Senate, to estimates hearings, so there will be some grilling on the first day about upgrades, and also about the fabled Qantas chairman’s lounge, a networking facility which those with power are invited to join.
“The Chairman’s Lounge” is the title of the book by journalist Joe Aston that kicked off the furore a week ago.
The estimates hearings are also likely to see opposition senators probe the entrails of whether Lidia Thorpe, who demonstrated noisily at the parliamentary reception for the King, has or has not been properly sworn in as a senator.
Thorpe substituted the word “hairs” for “heirs” when she read the oath. But she signed the paper, and constitutional expert Anne Twomey thinks she’s met the requirements.
McKenzie has been among those targeting Thorpe. But if, when the full Senate sits later in the month, the opposition tries to have action taken against Thorpe, it will just serve her cause.
Thorpe wants publicity and that would give her plenty more. To be attempting to censure or even have disqualified an Indigenous senator would send a bad signal, at home (where some Indigenous people back her) and abroad.
The House of Representatives this week will have a heap of legislation before it, including the bill on misinformation and disinformation. There will be another to keep the NBN in public hands, as well as the aged care reforms.
But we’re still awaiting an announcement on restricting gambling advertising, and a bill to put an age limit on young people signing up to social media accounts.
We won’t be seeing before the election legislation for the prime minister’s announcement on cutting student debt by 20%, and other changes relating to its repayment, that he unveiled at the weekend.
Unlike the government’s earlier change to the indexation of this debt, now before the Senate, these new measures are promises – conditional on Labor winning next year’s election.
If that happens, Albanese says this will be “the first piece of legislation we bring into the next parliament”. The 20% cut would be from loan accounts that exist on June 1 next year.
The government says this is worth $16 billion, although experts point out the real figure – that is, the cost to taxpayers – is several billion dollars less because a portion of these loans would never be repaid anyway.
We do not have a precise timeline for the cost, which the government says would be borne over the life of the debt. No doubt the estimates hearings will see some delving into this promise, that is squarely directed at millennial voters and those younger and focused on the cost of living.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Financial literacy is vital for individuals and households. Simply put, it’s the ability to understand and effectively use various financial skills: budgeting, managing debt, making sound investments, and understanding financial statements.
These skills are crucial for businesses, too – especially small and medium enterprises. Small and medium enterprises are widely recognised as the backbone of many low-income countries’ economies. The World Bank estimates that these businesses account for between 60% and 70% of jobs in sub-Saharan Africa and approximately 40% of low-income countries’ GDPs globally.
Ghana is one of the countries whose economy relies heavily on small and medium enterprises. Much emphasis has been placed on how important it is for these businesses to access finance. But far less has been discussed about the value of financial literacy. In Ghana, as is the case in many other countries, the reality is that many small and medium enterprises still fail to grow as expected, even when they have access to capital. This surprising outcome suggests that access to finance, while crucial, is not the sole factor determining business success. The missing piece of the puzzle? Financial literacy.
We conducted a study to find out whether managers at small and medium enterprises in Ghana believed that financial literacy would help them to improve their growth after accessing finance. CEOs and senior financial managers who self-identified as being financially literate told us that their businesses had grown as a result, explicitly linking growth and financial literacy.
It is clear from this study that financial literacy empowers the managers of small and medium enterprises to make informed decisions, make the best use of their resources, and avoid common pitfalls that can derail business growth. It enables them not only to access finance but also to use it effectively for sustainable growth and long-term success.
Our findings have wider implications. Small and medium enterprises are vital for economic growth. But their potential is being undermined by a lack of financial literacy. This isn’t just a problem for businesses themselves: it’s a problem for the entire economy they are part of. When small and medium enterprises fail to grow, job creation stalls, innovation slows down, and the economy as a whole suffers.
We defined small and medium enterprises in the same way as Ghana’s Statistical Service does: companies that have 250 or fewer employees.
Ultimately, 201 firms across the manufacturing and services sectors took part in the study. The vast majority of responses were from CEOs and senior finance managers, which is important since people in these positions ought to have comprehensive knowledge about a firm’s growth and performance.
The respondents saw a clear link between financial literacy and access to finance for growing their businesses. One CEO said:
Understanding financial principles is the foundation of our business decisions. Without financial literacy, we wouldn’t have been able to secure the necessary funding to expand our operations. It’s not just about getting access to finance but knowing how to manage it effectively that drives growth.
A senior financial manager told us:
Before improving our financial literacy, we struggled to convince lenders of our potential. Learning how to present our financials clearly and manage our cash flow gave us the credibility we needed to secure financing and invest in our growth.
Some interviewees discussed how not being financially literate had hampered their ability to properly use funding. A finance manager said that, after securing an initial round of funding. “we quickly realised we couldn’t manage cash flow effectively”, adding:
It felt like we were putting out fires every day. I didn’t understand terms like ‘liquidity ratios’ or ‘debt management’ until I started learning about financial literacy. It was eye-opening.
These lessons happened in various ways, some more formal than others. One CEO, realising their own financial management skills needed work, hired a financial officer with strong abilities in this area and learned a great deal from them.
Some CEOs signed themselves up for financial management workshops; others organised short courses for their entire teams. One told us: “We took a financial literacy course designed for entrepreneurs, and it gave us new insights into how to manage loans and investments. It wasn’t just about survival but also about how to leverage what we had to grow. Now, we budget better, monitor our cash flow closely, and even started saving for unexpected expenses.”
There are several ways to improve financial literacy among small and medium enterprises.
First, policymakers should incorporate mandatory financial literacy training into existing support programmes for these businesses. It should cover essential financial management skills such as budgeting, cash flow management and investment planning.
Policymakers could also facilitate partnerships between banks, microfinance institutions and educational organisations to offer targeted financial literacy workshops for managers at small and medium enterprises. This would equip businesses to manage the financial support they receive.
Finally, policymakers should introduce incentives, such as reduced interest rates or preferential loan terms, for small and medium enterprises that complete certified financial literacy courses. This would motivate managers to enhance their financial management skills, leading to more sustainable business growth and improved economic outcomes.
Samuel Adomako 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.
Then there’s the multimedia firehose of tragic accidents, gruesome images from devastating wars, seemingly random local street violence, warnings of a Third World War and grim distress signals about the dangers of rising authoritarianism on the eve of the United States presidential election and the possible return to power of climate-change skeptic Donald Trump.
Combine these stressors with our own personal mortality reminders: that new grey hair, an unexpected medical diagnosis, the COVID-19 related deaths of our friends or colleagues, and we’re left grappling with surprising and unwelcome fear.
But trying to get through our days as mostly functional, civilized adults while paralyzed with fear about our unavoidable death isn’t optimal or sustainable. Thankfully, our brains have a hardwired, helpful strategy that’s explained by “terror management theory.”
Defence mechanisms
Terror management researchers have shown that we all have predictable defences aimed at repressing our death awareness. Unfortunately, those defences can also contribute to destructive social forces.
Recognizing and understanding how these defences work is essential to making them less dangerous. These defences depend a lot on our pre-existing identities and whether death awareness operates within our conscious or subconscious mind.
When death fears are unconscious or just “background noise,” the situation gets more complex and problematic. Some of us will harden our identities and ideas about what we believe is right or just, what we are entitled to and with whom we’ll share resources, opportunities and power.
The result is increased social fragmentation and polarization rather than capitalizing on people’s diverse ideas, perspectives and experiences.
Authoritarian playbook
When mortality awareness is infused throughout a society — say, during a deadly pandemic or climate disasters — manipulating people’s death fears becomes a seductive route to power for authoritarians or would-be authoritarians like Trump.
Some people will become receptive to a charismatic figure’s promises of safety, rules, and a return to a better time.
In a subsequent study, Fritsche’s results were more dire: death awareness defences created “prejudice, stereotyping, aggression, and racism, which, in turn, can lead to the escalation of violent intergroup conflict and, thus, the escalation of war.”
While this trajectory isn’t guaranteed, ignoring the influence of mortality defences on social dynamics seems both short-sighted and foolish.
Be a hero
So, what can we do to avoid the worst outcomes of polarization, antagonism against marginalized and racialized communities, authoritarianism and potential violence?
Second, a final defence against mortality fears is to build up our self-esteem through positive “hero projects.” Through these activities — philanthropy, raising children, works of art or literature, teaching, protest or activism for social change — we commit to an action that may not be in our immediate self-interest but we persist despite difficulties, discomfort and often daunting odds.
In our hero projects, we may take less but give more, and direct our energy to outcomes that will, hopefully, benefit our communities long after we’re gone.
The authoritarians among us are already adept at manipulating our mortality fears for their own benefit. We can accept their preferred power trajectory, or we can recognize the influence of mortality fears and create alternatives in the days, weeks, months and years to come.
Sarah Elizabeth Wolfe gratefully acknowledges two decades of funding from Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The author 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 her academic appointment.
South Asian countries Bangladeshand India are using settler colonial policies as they resettle citizens in contested territories.
The intention is to reduce the demographic strength of ethnic minorities, minimize their influence over their ancestral lands and eliminate their demands for internal autonomy.
Population resettlement was an integral part of European colonialism. European colonizers settled their people in countries like India, bought up large swaths of land, established institutions that served their interests and achieved the territorial domination of the countries they colonized.
But even following the decline of European colonialism, the inclination towards colonial policy has not decreased in South Asia. My preliminary research is finding that population resettlement has become a part of the region’s post-colonial playbook.
The scene in South Asia
Over the years, South Asian countries have advanced population resettlement projects in their contested ethnic territories.
Nepal, for instance, launched its organized population resettlement program in 1961, relocating the Pahadi people from the hilly areas of the country to the Tarai lowlands, the contested homeland of the Madheshi, Tharu and Indigenous Peoples.
In the 1990s, nearby Bhutan evicted around a million Nepali-speaking ethnic Lhotsampas from its southern region and offered incentives to the majority Bhutanese people to settle in the area.
In 2019, the Indian government amended the country’s constitution to allow non-Kashmiri people from elsewhere in India to settle in India-administered Kashmir. The Muslim majority region has been divided into Indian, Pakistani and Chinese controlled areas for decades.
Pakistan hasn’t embarked on population resettlement to this scale, but its treatment of ethnic minorities is also troubling. The extreme oppression of ethnic groups in East Pakistan prompted Bengali minorities to fight for independence, leading to the formation of modern Bangladesh in 1971.
South Asian countries pursued these settlement policies as ethnic minorities — the Madheshis in Nepal, the Lhotshampas in Bhutan, the Kashmiris in Kashmir, the Paharis in Bangladesh and the Tamils in Sri Lanka — were demanding autonomy and self-determination in their ancestral territories.
The governments in these countries fear autonomy will eventually lead to secession. They’ve pursued settler colonial policies to resettle citizens in these regions to prevent that from happening.
Despite official claims that resettlements foster greater economic development and inter-ethnic harmony, population relocation causes real harms to ethnic cohesion, solidarity and collective rights.
It suggests these South Asian governments have internalized colonialism, although they didn’t all share the same experiences with European colonialism.
Choosing a questionable path
India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka experienced direct British colonial occupation. While Nepal and Bhutan were not under direct colonial rule, they had indirect encounters with the British.
Nepal faced threats to its territorial integrity from the British government and fought against the potential encroachment during the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-1816. It signed a humiliating treaty with the British government and ceded its sovereign rights over some of its territories.
Bhutan signed a treaty in 1910, allowing the British government to oversee its external affairs.
South Asian countries emulated the settler colonial mentalities of their former colonizers and are resorting to practices that hurt the marginalized communities living within their national borders.
Governments often insist they’ve adopted resettlement projects to enhance economic growth, development and inter-ethnic harmony. However, it is often ethnic minorities who are displaced and face threats to their cultures, traditions and languages. The displacement of Indigenous Paharis in Bangladesh is a glaring example.
Tarnishing reputations
Granting autonomy to ethnic minorities that would allow them to exercise their right to self-determination internally could prevent these human rights violations, but some South Asian governments have not taken this route.
Instead, they’re opting to move non-ethnic minority citizens into ethnic territories.
In an era when inclusion has become something aspirational in many countries, this colonial population resettlement practice is likely to hurt the credibility and reputations of South Asian states — and probably won’t end well. The nationalist dreams and aspirations of ethnic minorities don’t vanish in the face of adversity; quite the contrary.
Hari Har Jnawali receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to work on the project “Population Resettlements in Ethnic Territories of South Asia: Why and How States Pursue Internal Colonialism?”
One Health is based on an understanding that our health and that of animals, plants and ecosystems are interdependent. (Shutterstock)
November 3 is World One Health Day. One Health brings all parts of society and governments together to tackle joint problems of human, animal, plant and ecosystem health.
Canada needs a One Health plan now to better face worsening climate change, accelerating biodiversity loss, pandemic threats, and threats from superbugs resistant to antibiotics. Canada’s actions on these issues are reactive rather than preventive, and aren’t well co-ordinated or funded. This undermines our readiness and response.
One Health is based on an understanding that our health and that of animals, plants and ecosystems are interdependent. It presents a way to promote the health of all and to navigate the inevitable trade-offs.
The virus had never been reported in cows before. Its detection was slow and too little was done to stop the spread. As of Nov. 1, H5N1 had spread quickly to 404 dairy farms across 14 states, costing millions in lost milk production and spilling back into poultry and wildlife, killing millions more birds.
It is concerning that H5N1 has also infected at least 39 people, primarily farm workers, fortunately causing only mild symptoms.
H5N1 is a growing threat because it infects many species, including seals, mink, bears, foxes, coyotes, dogs and cats. Influenza viruses that jump species pose a greater pandemic threat because of the mixing that may occur when different influenza viruses infect the same animal or person. This can produce new, more severe strains of human flu.
No one wants to face another pandemic. Canada’s actions to keep ahead of this threat would be enhanced by national One Health planning and co-ordination.
One Health around the world
National One Health plans of other countries, like Rwanda, Thailand and Bangladesh, have been shown to help prevent human and animal disease outbreaks. Global Affairs Canada and the International Development Research Centre have invested $40 million since 2021 to support One Health internationally, including in hotspots of disease emergence.
The U.S. has a One Health Act and recently launched its national co-ordination platform. However, Canada has just begun this work at home. Canada created a high level steering committee to oversee the Pan-Canadian Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). Time and effort were taken to involve federal, provincial and territorial agencies, Indigenous people, civil society and researchers to arrive at an inclusive framework with the right objectives, responsibilities and outputs. It’s an ideal model for a new Canadian One Health action plan.
Canada has a mixed track record of working across sectors, whether to fight past outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease, avian or swine flu, or co-ordinating actions by people from different departments and agencies on H5N1 or COVID-19 today. There are problems: nationally, collaboration is informal and focused on single issues, more reactive than preventive, and not supported by any overarching plan, decision-making structure or resources to ensure consistent, ongoing co-operation across threats and issues.
The risks of not putting these measures in place include information not reaching decision-makers, resources and expertise not being used optimally, trade-offs being misread by other agencies or partners, duplication and gaps, and too little getting done to prevent health threats.
Implementing One Health
Without a national One Health plan, Canada risks being vulnerable to new threats, including pandemics. (Shutterstock)
There is guidance. In 2021, the World Health Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, UN Environment, and the World Organisation for Animal Health agreed to work together on a One Health Joint Plan of Action and implementation guidance.
With gender equality, inclusiveness and equity, and the importance of local and traditional knowledge at the fore, countries should start implementing One Health by assessing capacities and programs already in place, setting up and funding national co-ordination, setting priorities for action, then producing and putting into action their national plan.
Canada should mirror what it has done to manage antibiotic-resistant microbes by developing and governing our own national One Health action plan, similar to the Pan-Canadian Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance.
Without a national One Health plan, Canada risks being vulnerable to new threats (including pandemics), investing too little in prevention and having a suboptimal response. It’s time for Canada’s One Health action plan.
This article was co-authored by Andrea Ellis, DVM, MSc., a consultant currently supporting One Health work with the World Organisation for Animal Health. She is the former Senior Veterinary Advisor to the Chief Veterinary Officer and World Organisation for Animal Health Delegate for Canada.
Dominique Charron is affiliated with the McEachran Institute and START.org. She is a member of the One Health High Level Expert Panel that advises the World Health Organization, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, UN Environment, and World Organisation for Animal Health. She is a former Vice-President, Programs and Partnerships, of the International Development Research Centre.
Cate Dewey is currently working on a community One Health project in Rwanda. The project is managed by Veterinarians without Borders, North America and is funded by Global Affairs Canada
As a scholar focused on race and gender issues, I recognize that these seemingly inconsistent definitions of blackness are not inconsistent at all. They demonstrate a consistent position on whiteness.
In both cases, Trump implies that the race of his opponent is all voters need to know to determine their characters. It is an ideology that normalizes the dominance and privilege of white Americans within a racial hierarchy.
Trump has said he believes America was at its best in the 1940s and 1950s. However, Trump’s long-standing inflammatory rhetoric around race — including his recent racist comments degrading Haitian refugees in Springfield, Ohio — do not simply glorify a time immediately before the civil rights era. They recall an older era.
Calls to “Make America Great Again” hearken back to colonialism, when whiteness — particularly white, male power — was at its peak. The period from 1500 to the 1960s was a time when white men could exercise control over people of color by racially classifying their bodies. And they protected whiteness by passing laws that declared “one drop” of Black blood as enough to declare someone Black.
Whiteness is property, as the legal scholar Cheryl Hines has argued. It’s an asset for those who possess it. It offers benefits like white privilege and the idea of being white as moral and superior.
More specifically, one-drop statutes reflected a fear that people who were considered white in terms of their appearance but had Black ancestry could reproduce with other white people. This, in turn, would result in the supposed degeneration of the white race.
These laws attempted to legally define Blackness.
Power and dominance
Harris and Obama, the children of immigrants, both have mixed-race backgrounds. Harris is the child of a Black Jamaican father and an Indian mother. Obama is the son of a Black Kenyan father and a white American mother.
However, Trump insists that Harris was “Indian all the way,” while Obama was a “Black president.” For me, this perspective reveals another aspect of Trump’s racial thinking: He appears to believe in the impenetrability and power of whiteness.
Trump sees Harris as capable of dancing back and forth between being Indian and being Black. Yet he has never implied that Obama can dance between being Black and being white.
In a society that often ties physical characteristics to racial identity, many people might find it difficult to imagine Obama as identifying as white. That’s because our society associates his skin tone and hair texture with Blackness.
However, I argue that the inability to view this hypothetical racial dance as possible for Harris and not for Obama is tied to white supremacist beliefs.
These beliefs defend whiteness as being imbued with dominance over other racial groups. This power is reflected in the ability to define the race of others, regardless of how they may identify themselves. And it is reflected in the desire to also limit who can count as white.
Trump does both of those things.
Donald Trump answers questions at the National Association of Black Journalists’ annual convention in Chicago on July 31, 2024. Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images
A foil to white identity
“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black,” Trump said in July at a gathering of Black journalists.
He added: “So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she went – she became a Black person.”
By suggesting that Harris has strategically identified as Black for political gain, Trump implies that there’s a political advantage to being Black in America.
This notion aligns with the racist belief, fueled by white racial resentment, that Black Americans are afforded privileges over whites and Asian Americans.
The sociologist Arlie Hochschild has shown that many white Trump supporters believe circumstances in America have gotten worse for whites in recent decades. They believe many of the gains for people of color — affirmative action and other diversity policies — have been at the expense of the rights of white people.
Simultaneously, Trump’s comments emphasize his own whiteness by using Harris’ and Obama’s race as a foil to his white identity. Research on the construction of race in America shows that whiteness is devoid of meaning without something to define itself against.
For white people who feel many things have been taken away from them in an increasingly multiracial America, Trump is their warrior. He campaigns to protect the white population and culture of America.
Marya T. Mtshali 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.
You might have heard about your local Buy Nothing Project group on Facebook. If not, you probably know someone who’s a member. We estimate at least one million Australians are involved as members or live in households with a member (probably their mum).
Buy Nothing groups enable people to ask for and give away unneeded stuff in their neighbourhood. Whether it’s gifting excess garden produce or an outgrown toy, or asking for winter clothes or to borrow a power tool, the groups help people help others.
Australia has more than 500 of these groups, each with 500–3,000 members. While ordinary in operation and humble in commitment to neighbourhood generosity, these groups have extraordinary potential to reduce consumption and waste. Our research also suggests they improve community wellbeing.
Homes and neighbourhoods have a big role to play in the transition to a circular economy. This kind of economy shares, reuses, repairs, repurposes and recycles materials and products for as long as possible. This circularity is crucial, because getting to net zero is a difficult ask without public buy-in on reducing consumption.
However, our research also finds Buy Nothing groups are not immune to older gendered scripts of household labour. Most group members are women, many of them mothers. It is they who are taking, or expected to take, responsibility for finding or disposing of the stuff that fills their family’s homes and lives. This has troubling implications for how we think about action and responsibility for household waste.
How do Buy Nothing groups work?
Since its founding in the United States in 2013, the Buy Nothing Project has grown quickly. There are 128,000 Buy Nothing communities around the world today.
Other online platforms also help people redistribute used goods. But several membership rules make the project unique. The two strictest rules are:
“give where you live” by joining only one hyper-localised Facebook group
Each local group covers just a few suburbs. Volunteer admins run these groups and enforce the project’s rules and values.
Buy Nothing Project co-founder Rebecca Rockefeller talks about its origins.
Why do people join?
In our study, members cited various reasons for joining and continuing to be involved. The “free stuff” was an obvious motivation. Yet they more often mentioned wanting to help others and sustainability and environmental concerns.
The minimal barriers to participation helped to reduce any perceived financial or logistical challenges associated with sustainable consumption.
Interviewees also said their involvement helped them connect with their community. People found much joy and satisfaction in building social networks and helping others.
People are even gifting items with substantial resale value, such as laptops or bikes. This suggests they value the community connection more than the money they might have been able to get from a sale.
The data we gathered show these groups have more “gifts” than “asks”. This indicates we have many unused items in our homes. It also highlights a common hesitancy to rely on others, which the Buy Nothing Project seeks to overcome.
Operating online offers people a high degree of control over when and how they take part. Buy Nothing participation varied based on life circumstances. Parenthood, natural disasters, pandemics, evolving personal values and educational experiences all influenced people’s engagement.
Participants appreciate the platform’s user information, such as names and profile images. This fostered feelings of familiarity, reciprocity and community.
But the online environment also allows some anonymity and a relaxed or blended approach to the “buy nothing” ethos. People still feel free to buy things when they need to.
Many participants engage regularly with the group via a quick daily scroll through Facebook. Using the for-profit platform caused some concerns for the founders, who felt it conflicted with the movement’s values. But attempts to move away from Facebook to an app were largely unsuccessful.
The cost-of-living crisis has spurred on the global growth of Buy Nothing groups.
What are the broader benefits of Buy Nothing?
Buy Nothing membership can be very educational. Via a “drip feed” of materials in their social media feed, members see others like them engage in environmentally conscious behaviours. As one member said:
The more I have been in [the group], the more I am appreciating the concept.
Such exposure normalises circular gifting and asking behaviours, encouraging members to adopt them too.
Within households, group membership fosters discussions and behaviours related to sustainability. Many members talk with their children about product reuse, charity and awareness of others’ needs.
Households can play a crucial role in adopting environmental innovations. This is because they serve as hubs for social interactions and the spread of knowledge.
But conflicts over sustainable practices also arise within households. Members reported “pulling their families along”. One recalled her struggle to convince her husband to reduce household waste. She was “dragging him kicking and screaming along” but now he was “starting to appreciate some value” in her efforts to reduce their waste.
Our participants’ domestic frustrations mirrored broader anxieties about climate change and the environmental impacts of too many belongings and waste. They linked personal anxiety about clutter with global issues such as exporting waste to poor countries and low-quality donations overwhelming charities.
Group admins told us 75-80% of group members are women, as were most admins themselves. This leads us to an uncomfortable tension: a desire to recognise overlooked economic practices while resisting the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Just as household consumption and its excesses is positioned as women’s responsibility, managing household waste has historically disproportionately consumed women’s time.
Members said they managed both their belongings and those of others, including parents and children. One said:
I feel like I’m the only person who ever takes anything out of our house.
While celebrating this sustainable activity, we should recognise women are doing most of this work.
I am a member of my local Buy Nothing group – both for personal and research purposes.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Russell, Adjunct Associate Professor, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, University of Sydney
Stark health disparities exist across the United States. Life expectancy is lower than in other wealthy countries – and declining. The richest American men live 15 years longer than their poorest counterparts. The richest American women live ten years longer.
Political differences are an interesting and provocative way of looking at these disparities.
Differences are frequently analysed by race, a proxy for other factors that influence health, such as housing, environmental pollution, nutrition and affordable access to health care.
But there are other ways to cut the data. This includes by state – whether it is “red” (governed by the Republican party) or “blue” (by the Democrats). We can also look at individual political affiliation.
One new study from the US looks at political polarisation as a risk factor for individual and collective wellbeing. It finds polarisation – where opinions and beliefs become concentrated at opposing extremes – has a major impact on health.
The paper explores the health risks of polarisation using the COVID pandemic as a case study. COVID saw Americans die at far higher rates than people in other wealthy nations.
Australia escaped the high death toll. But there are still significant lessons we can learn – about how increasing polarisation affects our health and wellbeing, and for the effective management of pandemics and other health crises.
Political orientation and health
The relationship between important health measures, political loyalties and voting patterns in US counties and states is significant. At the state level, policy-making has become increasingly linked to political ideology. With this, differences in lifespan and health status across states have grown.
Political division in the United States intensified during the COVID pandemic. Ron Adar/Shutterstock
On average, life expectancy for residents in Democratic-voting states is more than two years longer than in Republican states. Political orientation is also a strong predictor of obesity rates and chronic illnesses linked to obesity, such as heart disease and diabetes.
Much of this is due to differences in social policies, such as Medicaid. All of the ten states yet to take up the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid – which provides health insurance for poor people – are run by Republicans.
The scale of welfare programs and firearm regulations in these states also play a role.
Stress of a polarised political climate
Large numbers of Americans also report that politics takes a significant toll on their health. This is caused by stress, loss of sleep, suicidal thoughts, an inability to stop thinking about politics and engagement with social media, for example, making posts they later regret.
A study from 2021 showed people who are more ideologically extreme than their state’s average voter have worse physical and mental health.
This political partisanship has been greatly aggravated by Donald Trump’s arrival on the American political scene. The former Republican president has stoked social division and undermined trust in government, scientific expertise and public health organisations. Disinformation and misinformation continue to spread.
All of this was on show in how the Trump administration handled the COVID pandemic. Trump and other political leaders made the situation worse by linking health behaviours (such as mask-wearing and vaccination) to partisan identity.
There was a clear impact on the rates of COVID infection and death. Red states implemented fewer political decisions to mitigate COVID than blue states. And after vaccines became available, residents of pro-Trump counties – less likely to be vaccinated – were more than twice as likely to die from COVID as those in areas that supported Biden.
It is also interesting to look at the role of education here. Low education levels were found to be a strong and independent predictor of whether you were more likely to die from COVID in the United States. This might be explained by the relationship between education and both collective culture and individual literacy.
There is also a strong link between education and political affiliation.
College graduates are more likely to vote Democratic, while those without a degree, especially white Americans, are more likely to vote Republican. This was not explored in the new US study about health and polarisation.
Erosion of trust is dangerous for health
Trust in government is another key factor not addressed in that research. But in Australia, this is top of mind following the release of the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report, which found the federal government must work to rebuild trust after lockdowns and other mandates.
Greater trust in government is linked to increased political participation, social cohesion and collaboration in tackling societal challenges. In both Europe and the United States, social cohesion and public trust in politicians and experts have been linked to lower excess mortality from COVID.
In Australia, the Australian Cohesion Index shows the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have eroded trust in government and affected health and well-being. At the same time, Australians see the nation as increasingly polarised.
The presidential election this week will decide much about the future of the United States as a polarised and divided nation. In Australia, the lessons and recommendations from the COVID report provide an opportunity to avert the choices facing the United States.
Lesley Russell has worked as a policy advisor for the Democrats in the US House of Representatives, for the Obama Administration and for the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Parliament.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathrynne Henshall, Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University
It’s the time of year when shiny horses and colourful clothing fill our screens – the Spring Racing Carnival, which includes high profile races like The Everest, Melbourne Cup and Cox Plate.
It’s also the time of year when questions are asked about the welfare of racehorses that compete in the so-called “sport of kings”.
But recently, as we’ve come to know more about what makes a good life for a horse, questions are being raised about the daily lives of racehorses.
Industry participants will point to the high level care that racehorses receive – comfortable stables, specially formulated diets, the latest vet treatments and added extras such as massages and swimming sessions.
But does this care translate into good welfare?
The theory of ‘telos’
Firstly, a quick primer on the difference between care and welfare.
Care includes all the things that make sure racehorses get fit, stay fit and stay healthy. This care helps maximise the chance a horse will win races.
Welfare is the animal’s subjective or individual experience of its life – how it feels – and there are a number of ways to assess this.
One way is the concept of “telos”, originally developed by Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.
Telos helps us to identify what matters to animals – their behavioural, psychological and physiological needs.
So to consider if racehorse care actually translates to good welfare, we can assess how closely it provides the animal with the things that matter to them, based on their telos.
Equine telos involves living in groups, forming long-lived social relationships, grazing fibrous plants and being on the move for up to 18 hours a day, as well as staying safe by sensing danger and then moving away.
It also involves living in variable environments to solve challenges, learn, engage in curiosity and play.
Let’s compare that to the daily life of a racehorse.
Movement and feeding
Firstly, the vast majority of racehorses live in stables – sometimes up to 23 hours a day.
Multiple studies have found continuous stabling harms horse welfare.
Stables significantly restrict opportunities for voluntary movement, and studies show stabled horses spend the majority of the time inactive.
Even though stables house horses communally, most designs limit horses’ opportunities for social interaction.
Thirdly, there’s little for a horse to do in a stable other than eat, stand, drink or lie, and they often develop abnormal behaviours that are associated with stress. These are never seen in free-ranging horses.
When racehorses do get to move, they have little say over how far, how fast and for how long they move.
The kinds of physical exercise racehorses do are both significantly shorter in duration and at much higher speeds than horses voluntarily choose. It’s those speeds that place them at risk of suffering a serious injury.
What about diet?
Although a lot of time and effort is spent ensuring racehorses enjoy high quality diets, they are mostly comprised of concentrated energy sources such as grains, rather the fibre horses evolved to eat.
Horses are trickle feeders (grazers), with small stomachs that continuously secrete digestive juices.
In the wild, grazing keeps those stomachs full, which prevents the stomach lining from being damaged by digestive acids.
In comparison, racehorses often consume their food very quickly – instead of spending up to 75% of their day eating, they spend only 33%.
Social relationships, in the limited form possible in a racing stable, are also frequently disrupted because horse populations are highly transient due to spelling, retirement or even just going to the races.
Then there’s the gear that’s used to control them.
Horses, like most animal species, escape and avoid painful stimuli.
However, in racing (and many other equestrian activties) it is mandatory to use “bits” to control horses’ behaviour during riding and handling. Bits work by causing uncomfortable pressure and pain and may lead to mouth injuries.
So, racehorses may be repeatedly exposed to pain from bits and perform a range of behaviours to try to escape that pain, like bolting, mouth opening or head tossing.
Racehorses frequently show signs of difficulty coping with the stressors of racing life, including “going off their feed”, aggression towards handlers, becoming hard to control when ridden and a range of stress behaviours and health issues, such as bleeding from the lungs.
What about welfare?
Racehorse care is often directed towards managing issues that are the direct result of the demands of the racing environment.
Fancy stables and aqua sessions are not important to horses, and may even cause harm.
What matters to horses are opportunities to make meaningful choices, such as the freedom to move, form friendships and graze for the majority of the day.
Current racing industry practices often deny horses the chance to make these choices.
There’s no doubt people in racing care deeply about their horses. But to experience good welfare during racing, racehorses need more than just good care.
Cathrynne Henshall receives funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Welfare Foundation
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Andrew, Professor, Head of the Discipline of Accounting, Governance and Regulation, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney
More of our personal data is now collected and stored online than ever before in history. The rise of data breaches should unsettle us all.
At an individual level, data breaches can compromise our privacy, cause harm to our finances and mental health, and even enable identity theft.
For organisations, the repercussions can be equally severe, often resulting in major financial losses and brand damage.
Despite the increasing importance of protecting our personal information, doing so remains fraught with challenges.
As part of a comprehensive study of data breach notification practices, we interviewed 50 senior personnel working in information security and privacy. Here’s what they told us about the multifaceted challenges they face.
Data breaches occur whenever personal information is accessed or disclosed without authorisation, or even lost altogether. Optus, Medibank and Canva have all experienced high-profile incidents in recent years.
Under Australia’s privacy laws, organisations aren’t allowed to sweep major cyber attacks under the rug.
They have to notify both the regulator – the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) – and any affected individuals of breaches that are likely to result in “serious harm”.
But according to the organisational leaders we interviewed, this poses a tricky question. How do you define serious harm?
Interpretations of what “serious harm” actually means – and how likely it is to occur – vary significantly. This inconsistency can make it impossible to predict the specific impact of a data breach on an individual.
Victims of domestic violence, for example, may be at increased risk when personal information is exposed, creating harms that are difficult to foresee or mitigate.
Enforcing the rules
Interviewees also had concerns about how well the regulator could provide guidance and enforce data protection measures.
Many expressed a belief the OAIC is underfunded and lacks the authority to impose and enforce fines properly. The consensus was that the challenge of protecting our data has now outgrown the power and resources of the regulator.
As one chief information security officer at a publicly listed company put it:
What’s the point of having speeding signs and cameras if you don’t give anyone a ticket?
A lack of enforcement can undermine the incentive for organisations to invest in robust data protection.
Only the tip of the iceberg
Data breaches are also underreported, particularly in the corporate sector.
One senior cybersecurity consultant from a major multinational company told us there is a strong incentive for companies to minimise or cover up breaches, to avoid embarrassment.
This culture means many breaches that should be reported simply aren’t. One senior public servant estimated only about 10% of reportable breaches end up actually being disclosed.
Without this basic transparency, the regulator and affected individuals can’t take necessary steps to protect themselves.
Affected individuals can’t take steps to protect themselves if breaches aren’t reported. Yuri A/Shutterstock
Third-party breaches
Sometimes, when we give our personal information to one organisation, it can end up in the hands of another one we might not expect. This is because key tasks – especially managing databases – are often outsourced to third parties.
Outsourcing tasks might be a more efficient option for an organisation, but it can make protecting personal data even more complicated.
Interviewees told us breaches were more likely when engaging third-party providers, because it limited the control they had over security measures.
Between July and December 2023 in Australia, there was an increase of more than 300% in third-party data breaches compared to the six months prior.
There have been some highly publicised examples.
In May this year, many Clubs NSW customers had their personal information potentially breached through an attack on third-party software provider Outabox.
Bunnings suffered a similar breach in late 2021, via an attack on scheduling software provider FlexBooker.
Getting the basics right
Some organisations are still struggling with the basics. Our research found many data breaches occur because outdated or “legacy” data systems are still in use.
These systems are old or inactive databases, often containing huge amounts of personal information about all the individuals who’ve previously interacted with them.
Organisations tend to hold onto personal data longer than is legally required. This can come down to confusion about data-retention requirements, but also the high cost and complexity of safely decommissioning old systems.
One chief privacy officer of a large financial services institution told us:
In an organisation like ours where we have over 2,000 legacy systems […] the systems don’t speak to each other. They don’t come with big red delete buttons.
Other interviewees flagged that risky data testing practices are widespread.
Software developers and tech teams often use “production data” – real customer data – to test new products. This is often quicker and cheaper than creating test datasets.
However, this practice exposes real customer information to insecure testing environments, making it more vulnerable. A senior cybersecurity specialist told us:
I’ve seen it so much in every industry […] It’s literally live, real information going into systems that are not live and real and have low security.
What needs to be done?
Drawing insights from professionals at the coalface, our study highlights just how complex data protection has become in Australia, and how quickly the landscape is evolving.
Addressing these issues will require a multi-pronged approach, including clearer legislative guidelines, better enforcement, greater transparency and robust security practices for the use of third-party providers.
As the digital world continues to evolve, so too must our strategies for protecting ourselves and our data.
Jane Andrew receives funding from The Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.
Dr Penelope Bowyer-Pont receives funding from the Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.
Max Baker receives funding from The Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.
As the US election unfolds, American territories such as the Northern Marianas, American Samoa, and Guam, along with the broader Pacific region, will be watching the developments.
As the question hangs in the balance of whether the White House remains blue with Kamala Harris or turns red under Donald Trump, academics, New Zealand’s US ambassador, and Guam’s Congressman have weighed in on what the election means for the Pacific.
Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies senior lecturer Dr Anna Powles said it would no doubt have an impact on small island nations facing climate change and intensified geopolitics, including the rapid expansion of military presence on its territory Guam, following the launch of an interballistic missile by China.
Pacific leaders lament the very real security threat of climate-induced natural disasters has been overshadowed by the tug-of-war between China and the US in what academics say is “control and influence” for the contested region.
Dr Powles said it came as “no surprise” that countries such as New Zealand and Australia had increasingly aligned with the US, as the Biden administration had been leveraging strategic partnerships with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan since 2018.
Despite China being New Zealand’s largest trading partner, New Zealand is in the US camp and must pay attention, she said.
“We are not seeing enough in the public domain or discussion by government with the New Zealand public about what this means for New Zealand going forward.”
Pacific leaders welcome US engagement but are concerned about geopolitical rivalry.
Earlier this month, Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa attended the South Pacific Defence Ministers meeting in Auckland.
He said it was important that “peace and stability in the region” was “prioritised”.
Referencing the arms race between China and the US, he said, “The geopolitics occurring in our region is not welcomed by any of us in the Pacific Islands Forum.”
While a Pacific Zone of Peace has been a talking point by Fiji and the PIF leadership to reinforce the region’s “nuclear-free stance”, the US is working with Australia on obtaining nuclear-submarines through the AUKUS security pact.
Dr Powles said the potential for increased tensions “could happen under either president in areas such as Taiwan, East China Sea — irrespective of who is in Washington”.
South Pacific defence ministers told RNZ Pacific the best way to respond to threats of conflict and the potential threat of a nuclear attack in the region is to focus on defence and building stronger ties with its allies.
New Zealand’s Defence Minister said NZ was “very good friends with the United States”, with that friendship looking more friendly under the Biden Administration. But will this strengthening of ties and partnerships continue if Trump becomes President?
US President Joe Biden (center) stands for a group photo with Pacific Islands Forum leaders following the Pacific Islands Forum Summit at the South Portico of the White House in Washington on September 25, 2023. Image: Jim Watson/RNZ
US President Joe Biden, center, stands for a group photo with Pacific Islands Forum leaders following the Pacific Islands Forum Summit, at the South Portico of the White House in Washington on September 25, 2023. Photo: Jim Watson
US wants a slice of Pacific Regardless of who is elected, US Ambassador to New Zealand Tom Udall said history showed the past three presidents “have pushed to re-engage with the Pacific”.
While both Trump and Harris may differ on critical issues for the Pacific such as the climate crisis and multilateralism, both see China as the primary external threat to US interests.
The US has made a concerted effort to step up its engagement with the Pacific in light of Chinese interest, including by reopening its embassies in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Tonga.
On 12 July 2022, the Biden administration showed just how keen it was to have a seat at the table by US Vice-President Kamala Harris dialing in to the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Fiji at the invitation of the then chair former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama. The US was the only PIF “dialogue partner” allowed to speak at this Forum.
However, most of the promises made to the Pacific have been “forward-looking” and leaders have told RNZ Pacific they want to see less talk and more real action.
Defence diplomacy has been booming since the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security deal. It tripled the amount of money requested from Congress for economic development and ocean resilience — up to US$60 million a year for 10 years — as well as a return of Peace Corps volunteers to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu.
Health security was another critical area highlighted in 2024 the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Declaration.
The Democratic Party’s commitment to the World Health Organisation (WHO) bodes well, in contrast to the previous Trump administration’s withdrawal from the WHO during the covid-19 pandemic.
It continued a long-running programme called ‘The Academy for Women Entrepreneurs’ which gives enterprising women from more than 100 countries with the knowledge, networks and access they need to launch and scale successful businesses.
While both Trump and Harris may differ on critical issues for the Pacific such as the climate crisis and multilateralism, both see China as the primary external threat to US interests. Image: 123RF/RNZ
Guam’s take Known as the tip of the spear for the United States, Guam is the first strike community under constant threat of a nuclear missile attack.
It was seen as a signal of China’s missile capabilities which had the US and South Pacific Defence Ministers on edge and deeply “concerned”.
China’s Defence Ministry said in a statement the launch was part of routine training by the People’s Liberation Army’s Rocket Force, which oversees conventional and nuclear missile operations and was not aimed at any country or target.
The US has invested billions to build a 360-degree missile defence system on Guam with plans for missile tests twice a year over the next decade, as it looks to bolster its weaponry in competition with China.
Despite the arms race and increased military presence and weaponry on Guam, China is known to have fewer missiles than the US.
The US considers Guam a key strategic military base to help it stop any potential attacks. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon
However, Guamanians are among the four million disenfranchised Americans living in US territories whose vote does not count due to an anomaly in US law.
“While territorial delegates can introduce bills and advocate for their territory in the US Congress, they have no voice on the floor. While Guam is exempted from paying the US federal income tax, many argue that such a waiver does not make up for what the tiny island brings to the table,” according to a BenarNews report.
US Congressman for Guam James Moylan has spent his time making friends and “educating and informing” other states about Guam’s existence in hopes to get increased funding and support for legislative bills.
Moylan said he would prefer a Trump presidency but noted he has “proved he can also work with Democrats”.
Under Trump, Moylan said Guam would have “stronger security”, raising his concerns over the need to stop Chinese fishing boats from coming onto the island.
Moylan also defended the military expansion: “We are not the aggressor. If we put our guard down, we need to be able to show we can maintain our land.”
Moylan defended the US military expansion, which his predecessor, former US Congressman Robert Underwood, was concerned about, saying the rate of expansion had not been seen since World War II.
“We are the closest there is to the Indo-Pacific threat,” Moylan said.
“We need to make sure our pathways, waterways and economy is growing, and we have a strong defence against our aggressors.”
“All likeminded democracies are concerned about the current leadership of China. We are working together…to work on security issues and prosperity issues,” US Ambassador to New Zealand Tom Udall said.
When asked about the military capabilities of the US and Guam, Moylan said: “We are not going to war; we are prepared to protect the homeland.”
Moylan said that discussions for compensation involving nuclear radiation survivors in Guam would happen regardless of who was elected.
The 23-year battle has been spearheaded by atomic veteran Robert Celestial, who is advocating for recognition for Chamorro and Guamanians under the RECA Act.
Celestial said that the Biden administration had thrown their support behind them, but progress was being stalled in Congress, which is predominantly controlled by the Republican party.
But Moylan insisted that the fight for compensation was not over. He said that discussions would continue after the election irrespective of who was in power.
“It’s been tabled. It’s happening. I had a discussion with Speaker Mike Johnson. We are working to pass this through,” he said.
US Marine Force Base Camp Blaz. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon
If Trump wins Dr Powles said a return to Trump’s leadership could derail ongoing efforts to build security architecture in the Pacific.
There are also views Trump would pull back from the Pacific and focus on internal matters, directly impacting his nation.
For Trump, there is no mention of the climate crisis in his platform or Agenda47.
This is in line with the former president’s past actions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2019, citing “unfair economic burdens” placed on American workers and businesses.
Trump has maintained his position that the climate crisis is “one of the great scams of all time”.
The America First agenda is clear, with “countering China” at the top of the list. Further, “strengthening alliances,” Trump’s version of multilateralism, reads as what allies can do for the US rather than the other way around.
“There are concerns for Donald Trump’s admiration for more dictatorial leaders in North Korea, Russia, China and what that could mean in a time of crisis,” Dr Powles said.
A Trump administration could mean uncertainty for the Pacific, she added.
While Trump was president in 2017, he warned North Korea “not to mess” with the United States.
“North Korea [is] best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met by fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
North Korea responded deriding his warning as a “load of nonsense”.
Although there is growing concern among academics and some Pacific leaders that Trump would bring “fire and fury” to the Indo-Pacific if re-elected, the former president seemed to turn cold at the thought of conflict.
In 2023, Trump remarked that “Guam isn’t America” in response to warning that the US territory could be vulnerable to a North Korean nuclear strike — a move which seemed to distance the US from conflict.
If Harris wins Dr Powles said that if Harris wins, it was important to move past “announcements” and follow-through on all pledges.
A potential win for Harris could be the fulfilment of the many “promises” made to the Pacific for climate financing, uplifting economies of the Pacific and bolstering defence security, she said.
Pacific leaders want Harris to deliver on the Pacific Partnership Strategy, the outcomes of the two Pacific Islands-US summits in 2022 and 2023, and the many diplomatic visits undertaken during President Biden’s presidency.
The Biden administration recognised Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign and independent states and established diplomatic relationships with them.
Harris has pledged to boost funding to the Green Climate Fund by US$3 billion. She also promised to “tackle the climate crisis with bold action, build a clean energy economy, advance environmental justice, and increase resilience to climate disasters”.
Dr Powles said that delivery needed to be the focus.
“What we need to be focused on is delivery [and that] Pacific Island partners are engaged from the very beginning — from the outset to any programme right through to the final phase of it.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
It’s estimated almost 1.9 million Australians have diabetes, and numbers are growing. Between 2013 and 2023, the total number of people known to be living with diabetes across the country rose by 32%.
As is the case for a range of health conditions, diabetes disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Among other factors, physical activity plays an important role in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. But our new study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, shows we don’t know enough about the role of physical activity in preventing and managing type 2 diabetes in First Nations people.
What is diabetes?
Diabetes is a condition where there’s too much glucose (sugar) in the blood. There are different types, but the most common is type 2 diabetes. In people with type 2 diabetes, the body becomes resistant to the effects of insulin, a hormone which regulates blood sugar levels.
Risk factors for type 2 diabetes include having a family history of diabetes, being overweight, and having high blood pressure.
The high rates of diabetes in Indigenous communities are to a large extent influenced by the social determinants of health. For example, we know food insecurity disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially in rural and remote communities. This can make it difficult to follow a healthy diet, which in turn affects overall health.
People in remote Indigenous communities also often have poorer access to educational and employment opportunities, suitable housing, and high-quality health care. All these factors can contribute to poorer health.
If diabetes is not effectively managed, it can lead to a range of complications, including long-term damage to the heart, kidneys, eyes and feet. Diabetes can affect all aspects of a person’s life, including their mental health.
Physical activity has been associated with lower levels of glycated haemoglobin in the blood (an index of glucose control), reduced blood lipids such as cholesterol, and weight loss. Evidence suggests a combination of aerobic and resistance exercise may be superior to either mode alone.
We reviewed studies that looked at the effects of physical activity interventions and programs in type 2 diabetes prevention and management for First Nations Australians.
We found only nine studies that investigated physical activity interventions for preventing or managing type 2 diabetes in Indigenous adults.
There was some evidence linking physical activity to better outcomes in Indigenous Australians with type 2 diabetes. However, the value of the findings was affected by shortcomings in study design and a lack of involvement of Indigenous people in designing and carrying out the research.
There are many aspects of diabetes prevention and management that tend to be more difficult for people in First Nations communities, particularly those that are rural or remote.
Also, new technologies that can help with diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors, are often very expensive.
It’s crucial Indigenous Australians with diabetes have access to appropriate diabetes support, education and services.
Notably, health, cultural and socioeconomic disparities can impact participation in physical activity. What constitutes realistic opportunities to exercise can differ for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people compared to other Australians.
Previous data has shown Indigenous Australians are less likely to meet physical activity recommendations than non-Indigenous Australians.
Factors that might influence the uptake of physical activity among First Nations people include access to safe, accessible, family-friendly and inexpensive locations to do exercise. These can be limited in regional and remote communities.
Overall, we found a lack of reliable data on whether exercise, and what type of exercise, might benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with type 2 diabetes.
Given physical activity is a cornerstone in the management of type 2 diabetes, we need more rigorous research in this area. These studies must be well designed and culturally appropriate. They must involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at all levels of the research process.
Targeted research will help us determine the best approaches to increase physical activity, and understand its benefits, for Indigenous people with type 2 diabetes.
Ray Kelly is a Director at Ray Kelly Fitness Pty Ltd, which provides lifestyle programs in partnership with Aboriginal medical services. He has received funding from Primary Health Networks, the NSW Ministry of Health, and directly from Aboriginal medical services. Ray has also received MRFF funding for his research.
Margaret Morris receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The United States presidential election will be held Tuesday, with results coming in from Wednesday morning AEDT. I have a guide to Wednesday below that includes when polls in the key states close and other information.
In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 48.5–47.8, a gain for Trump since last Thursday, when Harris led by 48.6–47.5. Harris’ national lead peaked on October 2, when she led by 49.4–45.9.
The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).
Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the narrow Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.
Trump leads by 0.4 points in both Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes) and Nevada (six). He leads by over one point in North Carolina (16) and Georgia (16), and by 2.6 points in Arizona (11). Harris leads by about one point in Michigan (16) and Wisconsin (ten).
If the current polls are exactly right, Trump wins the Electoral College by 287–251. But either Harris or Trump could outperform their polls and win easily.
In Silver’s model, Trump has a 53% chance to win the Electoral College, slightly down from 54% on Thursday. There’s a 28% chance that Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. The FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Trump a 53% win probability.
Silver is aggregating state polls to produce a popular vote forecast, and this gives Harris a 50.4–48.4 popular vote margin, better for Harris than her 0.7-point lead in national polls.
Silver said the US pollsters are “herding”, particularly in the key states. This means individual polls are not showing enough variation in their results. If the polls are wrong in these states, herding would be a cause.
The highly rated Selzer poll had a shock result, giving Harris a three-point lead in Iowa (six electoral votes), a state Trump won by eight points in 2020. However, an Emerson Iowa poll gave Trump a nine-point lead. At least Selzer isn’t herding!
If Harris loses, a big cause will be the unpopularity of Joe Biden. If Trump loses, I believe his biggest mistake will be agreeing to the June 27 debate with Biden. Biden’s woeful performance persuaded senior Democrats to pressure him into withdrawing.
Early voting and economic data
As at Friday, over 70 million Americans had voted early (44% of total 2020 turnout). Many states give data on their early vote, such as the gender composition or the party registration of voters in states that have registration by party. But Silver said on Thursday
that analysts shouldn’t use early vote data as an alternative to the polls.
Many people will vote on election day, so the composition of the current early vote may be a skewed representation of the final electorate. Also, we don’t know who early voters voted for. Even in states with party registration, people can register as Other, and Other voters make up a large share of the vote.
In economic data, US GDP increased 2.7% at an annualised rate in the September quarter (0.7% in quarter on quarter terms). GDP has increased modestly in every quarter since September 2022. In September, the personal savings rate dropped 0.2% since August to 4.6%.
Just 12,000 jobs were added in October. While the unemployment rate remained unchanged from September at 4.1%, the employment population ratio (the share of eligible Americans employed) dropped 0.2% to 60.0%. The survey fieldwork may have been affected by Hurricane Milton.
The Silver economic index is at +0.19, indicating an economy just above average. The economy is a key reason why Trump could win.
Election day guide for Wednesday AEDT
All times in this section are Wednesday AEDT. US media will often call uncompetitive states for a candidate once all polls in that state are closed, without any votes being counted. Some states are split across time zones, and in this case the part in the western time zone will close an hour after the eastern zone part.
Early and postal votes are expected to lean to Harris, while election day votes are expected to lean to Trump. So if the early vote is counted first, the state is likely to appear better for Harris than the final result, and the reverse if the election day vote is counted first.
The Green Papers has a complete list of poll closing times and FiveThirtyEight has details on how each state counts its votes. I will concentrate on the seven key states.
At 10am, the first polls close in the eastern time zones of Kentucky and Indiana. These states are both expected to be Trump blowout wins.
At 11am, polls close in Georgia. Early votes will be reported by 12pm, followed by the election day vote. Initial results will probably skew to Harris.
At 11:30am, polls close in North Carolina. The early vote will be counted first, so the initial results are likely to be relatively good for Harris.
At 12pm, polls close in Pennsylvania and the large majority of Michigan. Pennsylvania will count their election day votes first, which should be relatively good for Trump. Michigan will count its postal votes with election day votes.
At 1pm, polls close in Wisconsin, Arizona and the remaining small part of Michigan. In Wisconsin, election day votes will be counted first, with postals not released until late. An hour after polls close, Arizona will release its early vote, which should be relatively good for Harris. Counting of election day votes will continue until the evening AEDT, with more counting in the following days.
At 2pm, polls close in Nevada. The early vote will be counted first. Results can’t be reported until all voters in line have voted, which will probably be hours after the official close of polls. There will also be late postals to count.
At 3pm, polls close in the Pacific states of California (54 electoral votes), Washington (12) and Oregon (eight), all expected to be easy wins for Harris. If Harris is doing unexpectedly well in the key states, these three may put her over the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
At 5pm, the final polls close in Alaska’s western time zone.
We may know who has won the Electoral College and therefore the presidency by Wednesday afternoon, but counting will continue until well into that evening AEDT. If it’s close, it may take a few more days to resolve the Electoral College.
Some states, including the populous Democratic strongholds of California and New York, take weeks to count all their votes. So it won’t be until early December that we know the national popular vote totals.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
At first glance, Netflix’s Woman of the Hour is yet another true crime fictionalisation that plays to our preoccupation with American serial killers of decades past.
Directed by Anna Kendrick, who also plays the female protagonist Sheryl Bradshaw, the film reconstructs the crimes of serial rapist and murderer Rodney Alcala, aka the “dating game killer”. Alcala famously appeared on (and won) a television matchmaking show in 1978 amid a years-long killing spree.
The film examines historical sexual violence at both the individual and institutional level. It exposes the intense physical and psychological cruelty Alcala inflicted on his victims, as well as the cruelty and misogyny of the patriarchal culture that enabled such behaviour.
Woman of the Hour is a groundbreaking text: it’s the first feminist true crime film to achieve commercial success since the #MeToo movement gained momentum in 2017.
Rodney Alcala reportedly killed up to 130 people, including men, women and children. Netflix
Seeing and being seen
Woman of the Hour inverts the sadistic and voyeuristic “male gaze” of traditional true crime by obliging viewers to identify with the female victim rather than the male perpetrator.
As film theorist and gender studies expert Sarah Projanksy observed in her influential book Watching Rape:
Depictions of sexual violence in most horror and crime thrillers run the risk of extending and reproducing eroticised violence against women, even when victims fight back.
But Kendrick’s directorial debut doesn’t romanticise Alcala or glorify his crimes. There are no cowering or moaning victims shown in various stages of undress.
Instead we see, through careful framing and close-up shots, the panicked discomfort of Alcala’s victims as they navigate the dangers of dating, the damaging effects of casual misogyny and the ever-present threat of male fragility.
As Margaret Atwood once said, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while women are afraid men will kill them.
‘No matter what words they use,’ a make-up artist tells Sheryl, ‘the question beneath the question remains the same […] which one of you will hurt me?’ Netflix
“Did you feel seen?” Alcala asks Sheryl, after the aspiring actress appears with Alcala on The Dating Game in an attempt to be “seen”.
“I felt looked at,” Sheryl responds.
The tense interactions between predator and prey build an almost unbearable suspense for viewers, who have already seen through Alcala’s superficial charisma and charm.
Alcala was an amateur photographer who often exploited his victims’ desire to be understood and “seen”, and would lure them under the pretence of taking their photo.
The film’s unsettling dialogue and intelligent use of visual metaphor frames women as objects to be looked at, but with a twist: the female characters are aware they’re being tracked and entrapped (even if the realisation comes too late).
In subtle but devastating ways, Kendrick presents the horrific rape and torture committed by Alcala from the viewpoint of the victim. The camerawork underscores the victims’ feelings of shock and disorientation, but never in a voyeuristic or gratuitous way.
Rodney Alcala died of natural causes in 2021, aged 77. He was on death row at the time. Netflix
A game of murder and romance
Woman of The Hour implicitly suggests part of Alcala’s perverted pleasure in killing came from his gamification of this process.
In the film, Alcala strangles and then revives his victims, sometimes several times, before resubjecting them to the horror of his violence and the knowledge of their own death. His appearance on The Dating Game is the ultimate power move in his game of murder and romance.
“I always get the girl,” Alcala smirks at a fellow contestant.
His challenge extends not only to Sheryl, the blind date on the other side of the screen, but to the entire studio audience and the viewers at home.
However, the film makes clear that romance was never Alcala’s goal. Instead, he leverages the game of romance to exploit his victims’ vulnerability and trust. In this respect, the game is rigged in his favour.
When a woman in the audience recognises Alcala as the man who raped and killed her friend years prior, she attempts to report her concerns to the show’s producers, only to be fobbed off by a security guard. In another act of cruel male deception, the guard tells her to wait for a “senior executive” who he knows is actually the night janitor.
Women, it seems, are simply pawns in the patriarchal game of 1970s America – an era when women’s testimonies of sexual abuse and harassment were distrusted and their safety routinely overlooked.
Woman of The Hour lays bare the systemic failings that let Alcala get away with his crimes for so long. Netflix
Alcala after #MeToo
The women who survive Alcala’s violence in Woman of The Hour are those who perceive the artifice of his romance script, before inverting that script and presenting it, equally convincingly, back to him.
When teenage runaway Amy wakes in the remote desert after Alcala has brutally raped and assaulted her, she outwits him by coyly asking him to keep what has happened a secret.
By luring Alcala into a false sense of security, Amy convinces him to spare her. When Alcala pulls into a gas station, she flees to a nearby diner and alerts the police, who arrive and arrest him.
Kendrick is careful to not adopt the voyeristic male gaze that is so common in the true crime genre. Netflix
In the end, Kendrick’s message is explicit: “There’s no happy ending with a story like this.”
This post-#MeToo take on Alcala’s violent crimes is a commentary on the systemic misogyny – including the failings of the police and judicial systems – that allowed a serial killer who went on national television to evade detection.
Kendrick, the woman of the hour, refuses to look away.
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.
On election eve in the United States, the presidential race is deadlocked. The polls are exceptionally close across the country and in all the swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin in the industrial midwest; Nevada and Arizona in the west; and Georgia and North Carolina in the south.
The final New York Times/Siena poll shows Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leading by a very small margin or tied with Republican former President Donald Trump in all the swing states. The exception is Arizona, where Trump leads by a few percentage points.
While there is no clear favourite to win, there are several critical factors that will driving voters’ decisions on Election Day. This is what to watch.
Trump’s favourability is stuck around 43% in nationwide polling. In the past two presidential elections, he fell short of taking 50% of the national popular vote. As president, he never achieved over 50% favourability. And he has never topped 50% since leaving office.
This means he has hit a ceiling in his support and is highly unlikely to win the national popular vote on Tuesday.
This also reflects what happened to Trump in the Republican primaries to win the nomination. He dominated the field, defeating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and several others. But in most of those primaries, 15-20% of Republican voters did not vote for Trump.
Where will these Republican voters ultimately land on Tuesday? Probably half want to vote Republican and will go with Trump. Others will not being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris and will simply not vote for president.
Others will switch their support to Harris. Indeed, there has never been such a swelling of support from members of one party to support the other party’s presidential candidate.
Harris needs those “Republicans for Harris” votes. In addition, she’ll need to replicate the coalition of young voters, voters of colour and women who backed current President Joe Biden against Trump in 2020 in those same swing states and nationally.
Her favourability ratings are higher than Trump, at around 46%. The closer a presidential candidate is to 50% approval ratings, the better their chance of winning the election.
It’s the economy, stupid
At the same time, the country is in a bad mood. There is a classic polling question asked at elections: is the country on the right track, or moving in the wrong direction? Between 60–70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.
That is a signal this election is about change. Historically, that sentiment has not favoured the incumbent in the White House. As Biden’s vice president, Harris is directly facing this headwind.
There are four key issues in this election. The most important is the hip pocket issue: household budgets, cost of living pressures and voters’ concerns about their future economic security.
Since Biden and Harris took office nearly four years ago, the cost of groceries, household items, utilities and services such as insurance have risen between 10–40%. Petrol prices have gone up even more.
Though interest rates have fallen, American households are hurting. When asked who is best to manage the economy, voters in swing states say Trump by a 15-point margin.
The next-biggest issue is immigration. Since Trump first became a presidential candidate in 2015, he has relentlessly pushed the immigration button, declaring the border with Mexico is out of control, with crime and pillage rising in its wake.
The first three years of Biden’s term were also marked by big surges of immigrants crossing the border, though rates have fallen dramatically in 2024.
Voters view Trump as best placed to manage this issue, too, by nearly 15 points.
Abortion rights and reproductive health services are the third major issue. Many women across America are repelled by the Supreme Court’s decision to take away their long-held constitutional right to an abortion. Now, this policy is decided at the state level. And several conservative Republican states – including Ohio and Kansas – have voted to restore abortion rights.
Harris is seen as the champion of these issues. Multiple pollsshow voters trust her more than Trump on reproductive rights, by wide margins.
Abortion rights are also on the ballot in two swing states, Nevada and Arizona, which should help Harris in both.
The future of American democracy is the fourth major issue facing voters. According to a new poll, half the country sees Trump as a profound threat to America’s democracy who will wield authoritarian power to enforce his policies and programs.
Harris has pledged to turn the page, heal divisions and get Republicans and Democrats working together again.
In these closing days, Trump continues to make provocative statements with violent imagery. At a rally in Arizona last week, for instance, he again attacked Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who advocated for the prosecution of Trump over the January 6 insurrection:
She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
This may have provided Harris with a final cut-through moment on Trump’s fitness for office in the final days of the campaign. She said in response:
Anyone who wants to be president of the United States who uses that kind of violent rhetoric is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president. […] Trump is increasingly, however, someone who considers his political opponents the enemy, is permanently out for revenge and is increasingly unstable and unhinged.
So, who is going to win?
Trump’s team sees victory in all the polls. His chief pollster wrote late last week:
President Trump’s position nationally and in every single battleground state is significantly better than it was four years ago.
The polls may also be undercounting the full measure of Trump’s support, as was the case in 2016 and 2020. And the polls may not be reflecting the extent of antipathy towards Harris as a Black and south Asian woman.
Jen O’Malley Dillon, Harris’ campaign director, and who headed the 2020 Biden campaign that defeated Trump, has told her troops, meanwhile, that undecided voters are “gettable”, adding:
We have multiple pathways to victory […] Our folks are voting at levels we need them to vote in order for us to win.
Harris has built a US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) machine designed to reach voters in the swing states – through personal contact. This machine made three million phone calls and door knocks on homes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin alone on Saturday. If this machine delivers, it could be the boost Harris needs on election night.
Harris’ campaign also signalled over the weekend that late-deciding voters, and especially women, are breaking their way by double digits. There is a sense among Democrats that Harris is now peaking as the campaign concludes.
The final analysis
If Harris wins, it will be because she has successfully sealed the deal with those voters and made the election a referendum on Trump – that on balance the country has had enough of him after eight years. It also means her ground game delivered the votes.
If Trump wins, it will mean voters trusted him to manage inflation and the cost-of-living squeeze on households, as well as what they see as out-of-control immigration and crime. These messages would also have been further embellished by unease about Harris, a Black and south Asian woman, as president.
Bruce Wolpe receives funding from the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He also worked on the Democratic staff of the US House of Representatives, most recently during President Barack Obama’s first term.
The largest wetland on Australia’s second longest river, the Murrumbidgee in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, is drying up. This is bad news for the plants, animals and people who rely on the vast Lowbidgee Floodplain. So it’s important to understand what is going on, and whether we can do anything about it.
Our new research used computer modelling to study past and future river flows. We examined natural flows in the lower Murrumbidgee River between 1890 and 1927, before humans started changing the river. We compared these flows to what happened after big dams went in and more water was taken out for irrigation. Then, we modelled how climate change is likely to influence flows in future.
We found river regulation such as dams and reservoirs cut flows in half over the past three decades. It means periods between life-giving floods on the wetlands are now more than twice as long. With climate change, drying of these vital freshwater ecosystems is likely to accelerate.
Altogether, we predict the annual duration of flood events sustaining these wetlands will drop by as much as 85% by 2075 compared to natural levels, if nothing is done. But there are plenty of things we can do to turn this around, because our research shows the main reason for the decline is river regulation and overextraction.
A colony of Australian pelicans gathered on the Lowbidgee Floodplain. Annette Ruzicka
Floods are essential for wetlands
The Lowbidgee Floodplain, in southwestern New South Wales, supports expansive river red gum and black box forests as well as one of the state’s largest lignum shrublands. Lignum’s thick mass of stems forms bushes that make great nesting platforms for waterbirds, attracting thousands of glossy ibis, straw-necked ibis and royal spoonbills. The area is also a breeding ground for Australian pelicans.
The endangered Southern bell frog and threatened native fish such as Murray cod also live here.
Floods bring wetlands to life. But human activities have disrupted the natural cycle of flood and drought. In the Murrumbidgee, 26 big dams and reservoirs now store and divert water, mainly for irrigation. These interventions have more than doubled the time between floods, causing large sections of the wetlands to dry up.
The lack of floods has devastated the floodplain, causing black box and river red gum forests to die. Waterbird numbers also plummeted.
A clip from the aerial waterbird survey of Pollen Creek on the Lowbidgee (Centre for Ecosystem Science)
The Lowbidgee’s cultural significance
The Nari Nari people have lived on the Lowbidgee Floodplain for tens of thousands of years. The land and water has deep cultural and spiritual value.
Evidence of Nari Nari connection to this place is seen in the scar trees cut for canoes and other wooden items, middens of discarded shell and bone, earth mounds and burial sites scattered across the landscape.
After 180 years of dispossession, 880 square kilometres of the floodplain was returned to the Nari Nari Tribal Council in 2019. This allows the original peoples of this land to repair it, reinstating cultural burning for example. But there’s a limit to how much they can do without more water.
Nari Nari Elders Kerrie Parker (left) and Mabel Fitzpatrick (right) in the Gayini Wetlands of the Lowbidgee Floodplain. Annette Ruzicka
River regulation and climate change
Few studies have effectively reconstructed such a long history of a river to see where we have come from, and just as importantly, assessed what lies ahead.
We modelled natural flows in the Murrumbidgee River, using data for rainfall and runoff upstream. The rainfall data covers more than a century, from 1890 to 2018, which allowed us to model natural flows back to 1890.
First we established a baseline for natural flows. Then we were able to work out how dams, reservoirs and and water diversions have disrupted these flows over time.
We also considered how climate change might influence river flows in the future under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
We found most of the decline (55%) in the Murrumbidgee River’s flows was due to river regulation. But climate change will probably make matters worse, shaving another 7–10% off river flows by 2075, based on average projections.
The average annual duration of floods reaching the floodplain wetlands has dropped from 11.3 days under natural flows to just 4.5 days currently. This could decline further to around 1.7 days as the climate becomes warmer and drier.
An aerial view of the Gayini Wetlands. Annette Ruzicka
Now is the time to act
Australia’s rivers are at risk, but it’s not too late to act. By reducing over-allocation and returning water to the environment we can protect threatened and endangered species, reduce the impacts of climate change, and honour the cultural heritage of First Nations Peoples.
Managing water releases to mimic natural seasonal flows can also help reinstate the natural cues for native plants, animals and other organisms.
Our research underscores the urgent need to understand our past in order to explore future water management options. It’s clear much of the damage has been done by damming the river and taking out so much water. Now it’s important to restore the balance in favour of the environment, to prepare for future climate change.
The Murrumbidgee River and its major floodplain wetlands are also a warning – a canary in the coal mine so to speak – of what could happen to other river systems worldwide as water demand rises along with projected income and population growth. This is especially concerning for many arid and semi-arid regions, where climate change is increasing temperatures while reducing rainfall.
We wish to acknowledge the contribution of Nari Nari Tribal man and General Manager of Gayini wetlands, Jamie Woods, to this article and the research paper it was based on.
Jan Kreibich’s work was supported by the University of New South Wales and the Australian Research Council.
Richard Kingsford receives funding from a range of government and non-government organisations, including the Australian Research Council, the New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and Queensland Governments and the Australian Government. He is councillor of the Biodiversity Council and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.
In a significant blow to Australia’s defence capabilities, the federal government is cancelling what would have been the nation’s largest-ever space project: a A$7 billion military satellite communications system.
Defence industry sources quoted by The Australian newspaper indicated that insufficient funding was allocated to start the program, despite its strategic importance. According to the ABC, “defence industry figures believe there are cheaper options available”.
The project’s cancellation would mark a dramatic reversal for a program that was meant to make Australia’s military communications safer at a time when the cyber threat landscape has been steadily evolving.
The rise and fall of JP9102
The ambitious satellite program is known as JP9102. It was awarded to US defence contractor Lockheed Martin in April 2023 after a competitive tender process that included major players like Airbus, Northrop Grumman and Optus.
The project aimed to launch several large military-grade satellites. It would also involve several ground stations, new satellite communications operations centres, and a central management system. Taken together, this would create a secure communications network for Australia’s military.
Currently, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) uses a complex network of up to 89 different “capabilities” (military assets) that rely on satellite communications.
This existing system lacks the comprehensive security and coverage that JP9102 promised to deliver. Without it, Australia’s military communications are potentially left vulnerable to cyber and electronic warfare attacks.
In its statement, the Department of Defence claims its “current satellite communications capabilities support the immediate needs of the organisation”.
What can military satellites deliver?
The proposed satellite system was intended to create what experts call an “uncrackable data network” across the ADF.
These military-grade satellites would have provided secure communications for fighter jets, naval vessels and ground forces across the vast Indo-Pacific region.
Unlike commercial satellites, military satellites incorporate advanced encryption and anti-jamming capabilities. This makes them significantly more resistant to cyber attack and electronic warfare.
Military satellites face sophisticated cyber threats from both state and non-state actors.
China and Russia are widely recognised as having advanced capabilities in this domain. They have the ability to jam satellite signals, intercept communications and potentially even take control of satellite systems. North Korea has also demonstrated growing capabilities in cyber warfare, particularly in signal jamming.
In 2014, Russian forces reportedly jammed and disrupted satellite communications during their operations in Crimea. More recently, at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, hackers disabled thousands of satellite modems that were part of the Viasat satellite network, causing disruptions to both military and civilian communications across Europe.
In the commercial sector, Iran has been accused of jamming satellite broadcasts and GPS signals.
This demonstrates how even nations with less advanced military capabilities can pose significant threats to satellite communications.
JP9102 was considered a “bleeding-edge technology project”. It included plans for machine learning capabilities to increase agility and responsiveness.
The JP9102 satellites may, if they are based on open-architecture design or software-based systems, take advantage of future on-orbit servicing technologies that could extend their operational life and enhance their capabilities over time.
A budget reality
The key takeaway here is the growing gap between Australia’s defence ambitions and its budget reality. As regional tensions continue to increase and cyber threats evolve, the decision to cancel JP9102 highlights the challenging trade-offs between needing to secure Australia’s military communications and the costs of doing so.
It raises the question of how Australia will secure its military communications in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific region. The cancellation of JP9102 creates a significant capability gap in Australia’s military communications strategy that will need to be addressed.
Defence planners will likely need to explore alternative solutions. These might include partnerships with commercial satellite providers or joining the military satellite networks of allied nations, such as the United States.
David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In recent months, Australian concertgoers have witnessed plenty of unexpected onstage drama.
The latest example came from Coldplay’s sold-out Sunday show in Melbourne. Lead singer Chris Martin took a sudden plunge through a trapdoor, catching fans off guard, before reemerging with a laugh and reassuring wave.
Just weeks prior, also in Melbourne, singer Olivia Rodrigo abruptly fell into an unexpected opening mid-performance.
While such slips may seem like isolated moments of bad luck, they signal at one aspect of live shows that often goes unnoticed: performer safety.
As stages become increasingly elaborate – with intricate set designs and high-tech moving parts – the line between awe-inspiring production and potential hazard grows thin.
A thin line between spectacle and risk
Performer safety mishaps aren’t isolated accidents. They are part of a recurring pattern in live music in both Australia and overseas, with falls and slips being one of the most common setbacks. For instance,
in 2022, Post Malone fell through an open trapdoor mid-performance in St Louis. The fall resulted in a rib injury, a 15-minute interruption to the show and many concerned fans
on a more local level, in 2022 Australian cabaret performer Hans suffered a shattered foot and slight spinal damage after falling four metres while performing on a cruise.
in October, The Weeknd was grabbed by a Melbourne concertgoer who evaded security and rushed onto the stage and towards the artist, stunning him momentarily
last year, Bebe Rexha was struck in the face by a phone thrown from the audience during a concert in New York City. This resulted in a laceration that required stitches
Harry Styles was hit by various objects during his 2023 world tour. In one show in Los Angeles, a skittle struck his eye
during her BST Festival performance in London, P!nk was taken aback when a fan threw a bag containing their mother’s ashes onto the stage. While no one was injured, the unusual act left P!nk visibly shocked.
What’s behind this trend?
From falls, to fans rushing onstage, to objects flying from the crowd, it’s clear artists are facing a unique set of safety challenges. These challenges are driven by two factors: audience behaviour and increasingly complex stage designs.
While audience misbehaviour poses a significant risk, it seemed to have peaked post-pandemic. This may have reflected a collective frustration – or perhaps it was audiences failing to remember proper concert etiquette after spending so much time in lockdowns.
Social media also arguably played a role, by turning disruptive actions into “viral moments” and potentially inspiring copycats. Fortunately, these incidents seem to be declining as live music crowds settle back into pre-pandemic norms.
Stage-related mishaps, however, appear to be on the opposite trajectory. As artists strive to create unforgettable experiences, they’re confronted with stages that are riskier than ever before.
Delivering the “wow factor” has led to stages becoming multi-layered landscapes with high-tech trapdoors, platforms, dazzling lights and immersive visuals that may be difficult for the performer to navigate.
This raises a significant but often overlooked element in safety discussions: the human factors. Even the most seasoned performers can only process so much sensory input at once. As stage productions grow more complex, the cognitive load on artists also intensifies.
Artists already spend much of their mental energy on trying to engage their audience, leaving fewer resources to safely navigate a maze of lighting rigs, trapdoors and moving platforms. In this context, stage mishaps aren’t accidents; they’re byproducts of an environment where human attention is stretched to its limits.
As the demand for spectacle increases, so too does the risk of artists facing disorientation or injury.
Why does it matter? And what should be done?
Major artists are humans, too. Their safety is just as important as that of the audience – and is also an occupational safety matter.
But even beyond artists’ wellbeing, the effects of an onstage mishap can be felt by the entire audience. An accident can pause or even cut a show short, leaving fans frustrated.
While recent incidents have been limited to minor injuries or brief disruptions, these recurring patterns point to a growing issue that shoudn’t be ignored.
It’s time to bring performer safety into the spotlight – and there are a few ways we can do this. For instance:
tour operators and production teams have a responsibility to conduct thorough safety audits to identify every possible risk element an artist may encounter on stage
venues should prioritise security and make sure major events are adequately staffed
fans should be reminded that a stage is a performer’s workplace – and not an interactive free-for-all.
At the end of the day, ensuring a performer’s safety is a responsibility that falls on everyone, from the tour operator, to venue staff – and yes, even to the fans.
Milad Haghani 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 Hafsa Ahmed, Senior lecturer, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln University, New Zealand
The Asian markets have long been seen as a linchpin for New Zealand’s economic success. And the key to future growth could be the cultural similarities between Māori and communities across the Asian region.
These shared values include mana (honour/prestige), manaakitanga (reciprocity/hospitality), karakia (prayer), whakapapa (genealogy) and veneration of kaumatua (elders).
My ongoing research has found embracing the cultural values of tikanga Māori could give New Zealand an edge in these competitive Asian markets.
Seven of New Zealand’s top ten export destinations are in the Asian region. Exports to China alone amounted to NZ$20 billion last year. Exports to India amount to $520 million.
Asia’s projected growth presents a unique opportunity for any country trying to increase its trade in the region. New Zealand holds a unique advantage when engaging with Asia which relates to cultural distance – the extent to which shared values and norms differ from nation to nation.
Research has shown cultural distance is an important factor in international trade and management.
Cultural distance is what sets a country’s culture apart, including differences in language, societal values and family structures. It’s not static, and there could be clusters within countries where diversity exists.
European Australia, for example, is less distant to the European New Zealand than other countries due to shared colonial origins. But these British-based cultures are considered to have a greater distance from their own indigenous populations.
My research has found there are certain shared values between Māori and Asian cultures that mean the cultural distance is less than it is with Anglo-American cultures.
Similar to many Asian cultures, the Māori worldview is deeply rooted in the intricate relationships between humans, ancestors, and the natural world.
This can be seen through whakapapa and mana, both intrinsically linked to one’s connection to the natural environment and human beings.
This has similarities with spiritual practices in Asia, including Hinduism and Buddhism. The concept of bumitama in Balinese culture, for example, translates to “humanity-land-god”, reflecting a holistic view where humans are interconnected with nature and the divine.
The Māori concept of manaakitanga – the principle of reciprocity, where an individual is recognised and respected for not just who they are but as a representative of everyone who has gone before – is an acknowledgement that individuals are all connected through their ancestors.
Manaakitanga has parallels in many Asian cultures. For example, the ancient Sanskrit adage atithi devo bhava is the cornerstone of Indian hospitality.
Kaumātua – an elder in Māori society – holds a position of immense significance. As the custodians of knowledge, tradition and spiritual wisdom, kaumātua is pivotal in guiding the community, particularly the youth.
This approach of transmission of knowledge, values and cultural heritage from elders to younger generations is a core function of many Asian societies.
New Zealand’s advantage
This comparison simplifies complex cultural systems. It’s important to acknowledge that the nuances and complexities of each culture are vast and multifaceted.
But examining shared similarities can help foster a deeper appreciation for the resonance between Māori and Asian cultures.
The government needs to consider the cultural distance between Māori and Asian cultures as it works to promote trade with its Asian partners.
Incorporating tikanga Māori in international policy and engagement can enable authentic relationships with Asia.
In addition, New Zealand could further include Māori representation in diplomacy with specific Māori diplomatic roles for Asia.
Strategies can include adopting Māori values in decision-making – such as focusing on manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga. The government needs to also support Māori businesses to enter Asian markets and encourage training focused on Asian and Māori cross-cultural exchanges that include opportunities to learn Asian languages to bolster communication.
But this would require a thorough alignment of the New Zealand government towards Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles – a move that is unlikely with the current centre-right coalition.
It is clear embracing tikanga Māori could provide an edge to New Zealand when it comes to engagement with Asia to foster stronger economic, trade, investment and tourism relationships.
Hafsa Ahmed 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.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution — not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law, reports Michael West Media.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Michael West
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.
However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.
The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.
The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.
Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill. Image: MWM screenshot
Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.
In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.
By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.
Big-league tax dodger They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.
Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.
The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.
If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.
Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.
Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.
Little regard for laws Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.
This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.
Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is reopublished with permission.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeannette Wicks-Lim, Research Professor, Political Economy Research Institute, UMass Amherst
A Massachusetts ballot initiative would get rid of the state’s tipped minimum wage.AP Photo/Marta Lavandier
The federal minimum wage for tipped workers has stood at US$2.13 an hour since 1991. Back then, it amounted to half the $4.25 regular minimum wage. But Congress has failed to increase the tipped minimum while periodically raising the regular wage floor. Today, the tipped rate is less than one-third of the $7.25 federal full minimum wage.
As of October 2024, 30 states and Washington, D.C., had instituted their own, higher, regular minimum wages. The number of states taking this step keeps rising in part because Congress hasn’t raised the federal minimum wage since 2009. Over the years, many states have also adopted higher wages for tipped workers. Seven states have no tipped minimum wage at all, which means that employers must pay at least the state-mandated minimum wage to all workers, including those who earn tips.
If Massachusetts voters approve a ballot initiative on Nov. 5, 2024, their state will gradually raise the state’s tipped minimum wage until it matches the state minimum wage. That is, it will rise from $6.75 to $15 per hour by 2029.
Massachusetts would be joining eight states that require – or are on their way to requiring – the full minimum wage for tipped workers: Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. Two major cities, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have similar measures on their books, too.
To inform the debate about tipped wages, we – a labor economist and a sociologist – analyzed the potential impacts of implementing a full minimum wage for workers, businesses and consumers in Massachusetts. We found more evidence of potential upsides than downsides.
Tipped minimum earners’ demographics
For our study, we analyzed labor market data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We found that tipped workers are largely waiters, bartenders, hosts and bussers employed in bars and restaurants. They tend to earn low wages. Most are women, and they are disproportionately people of color.
In Massachusetts, tipped workers typically earn low pay: On average, they take home $20.30 per hour, including what they get in gratuities. That’s about two-thirds of the state average hourly pay of $31.50.
About 66% of tipped workers are women, compared with 49% in the state’s workforce as a whole. Some 43% are people of color, compared with 29% of all people employed in Massachusetts.
Teens also make up a disproportionate share of Massachusetts’ tipped workers: 15%, versus 4% for the broader workforce. But the vast majority of tipped workers are at least 20 years old.
Opponents argue that scrapping the lower minimum wage could backfire for tipped workers if their customers give smaller tips once they know employers have to pay tipped workers more – or some jobs are eliminated. They also worry that business costs would spike, raising prices. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, opposes the measure.
In Arizona, voters will cast their ballots on another ballot initiative that calls for a different type of tipped minimum wage reform. It calls for pegging the state’s tipped minimum wage to 25% below the full minimum wage. If approved, Arizona would effectively lower its tipped minimum wage, which currently stands at $11.35 an hour, to $10.76. Today, Arizona’s tipped minimum wage is $3.00 below the state’s full minimum wage of $14.35.
Prone to wage theft
When tipped workers’ base wages plus their tips do not add up to at least the state’s minimum wage, employers are supposed to make up the shortfall. This makes these workers particularly vulnerable to being underpaid, a form of wage theft.
The consequences of this vulnerability are plain to see in restaurants and hotels. The hospitality industry, which employs the highest share of tipped workers, accounts for less than 6% of employed workers in Massachusetts.
However, it accounts for nearly 14% of all complaints workers lodged with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office in 2023, including disproportionately high levels of complaints about minimum wage violations, the nonpayment of wages and tip violations.
The hospitality industry also accounts for over 36% of all enforcement actions – investigations that produced evidence of labor violations – found by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office.
The Massachusetts ballot initiative has stirred controversy in the state.
Effects on earnings
Two peer-reviewed economicstudies that examined three decades of data found that tipped workers earn measurably more money as subminimum wage rates increase.
Consider, for example, the $18.79 average hourly wage of tipped workers in states that treat tipped employees like other workers. This is 21.2% higher than the average $15.50 among tipped workers in states where the federal $2.13 subminimum wage remains in effect.
Only part of this difference can be explained by the 15.7% difference in average wages for all workers in those different clusters of states.
What could happen with business costs
To be sure, more than doubling the $6.75 tipped rate in Massachusetts to $15.00 may sound like it could cause business costs to soar. A couple of factors, however, would soften the blow.
First, we have calculated that the average tipped worker in Massachusetts restaurants earns about $11.75 an hour, before tips. Raising this rate to $15.00 is equal to a 28% increase – a much smaller lift than increasing the wage from $6.75 to $15.00. In addition, raising a worker’s wage from $11.75 to $15.00 by 2029 is equivalent to raising it to $13.00 in today’s dollars, or a 10% boost, after adjusting for projected inflation.
Second, as we explained in our study, since tipped workers make up about 30% of Massachusetts restaurant workers, and the payrolls of these businesses typically amount to about 30% of their revenue, these numbers imply that eliminating the tipped minimum wage by 2029 would increase the average Massachusetts restaurant’s costs by 1%.
If the average Massachusetts restaurant were to pass its entire labor cost increase onto the consumer through higher prices, this would mean that restaurant prices would rise about 2%.
This is equal to a $50 restaurant meal instead costing $51 – arguably a small price increase.
The two studies mentioned above, which reviewed decades of data to see whether tipped workers earned more, also looked at whether businesses in states that increased their tipped minimum wage cut more jobs compared with businesses in states that didn’t.
Although both research teams looked at basically the same data, one study found evidence of more job losses and the other did not, due to the different statistical choices they made. These studies, that is, produced inconclusive results about what raising the tipped minimum wage does to employment.
There’s far more research on whether increasing the regular minimum wage has caused significant job losses. Studies have found that when it has gone up, employers have faced cost increases that are similar to what we’ve estimated for Massachusetts employers, if the state were to eliminate its tipped minimum wage. And that evidence points to no significant job losses.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Uncertainty about the election getting to you? Is anxiety the dominant feature of your emotional landscape, maybe with a small sprinkling of impending doom?
It’s difficult not to be worked up about politics in today’s polarized climate. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit on, you may find yourself glued to your browser or TV, gobbling up every tiny tidbit of news and feeling your stress levels skyrocket.
I’m a psychologist who develops and tests strategies for combating anxiety. As I constantly tell my stressed-out clients, when it comes to election news, there’s a fine line between being well informed and being oversaturated with information.
If you’re ready to short-circuit your stress spiral, here are three science-backed strategies for coping with anxiety in times of uncertainty.
Approach your emotions with mindfulness
Being mindful refers to the quality of awareness you bring to your experiences – specifically, nonjudgmental attention focused on what’s happening right now.
Mindfulness practices originated in Eastern spiritual traditions, including Buddhism. Over the past several decades, mindfulness has gained popularity as a powerful tool for managing anxiety. For instance, meditation apps such as Headspace and Calm incorporate it. Even if meditation isn’t your thing, though, you can still apply nonjudgmental awareness, focused on the present, to election-related anxiety.
Be present. Anxiety can draw you into an uncomfortable spiral of “what-ifs” about the future. When you make a point to be present, you remind yourself what is actually happening right now, rather than letting hypothetical fears take over.
Although you may have serious concerns about the fate of the nation, those outcomes have not yet come to bear. As I tell my patients, “We’ll cross that bridge if we come to it. For now, focus on the step right in front of you.”
If you notice yourself getting carried away by thoughts of the future, you can pull yourself back to the present by bringing awareness to simple sensations – the feel of your feet on the floor, the rhythm of your breath, or the sounds around you – and remind yourself that you are safe in the current moment.
Pay nonjudgmental attention. Many people are hard on themselves for feeling strong emotions. This critical mindset might look like telling yourself that you’re overreacting, or that it’s weak to let others see that you’re upset. You might even view that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of your stomach as evidence that negative outcomes are right around the corner.
Making judgments about your emotions only serves to make you feel worse. In fact, researchers find that pushing away emotions or beating yourself up for having them leads to more frequent and stronger anxiety.
Instead, try giving yourself a break. Tell yourself, “This election is high stakes, so it makes sense I’m anxious.” Then, notice if your anxiety is driven by a fear about the future, and bring yourself back to the present.
Cognitive flexibility is the ability to shift away from rigid, all-or-nothing thinking about the future.
When people are anxious, they tend to focus on the worst-case scenario. For example, you might be telling yourself, “With this candidate in office, things will be terrible and I won’t be able to cope.”
In this scenario, I encourage my patients to move past that initial thought of how awful it will be and instead consider exactly how they will respond to the inauguration, the next day, week, month and so on.
Cognitive flexibility allows you to explore how you will cope, even in the face of a negative outcome, helping you feel a bit less out of control. If you’re experiencing a lot of anxiety about the election, try thinking through what you’d do if the undesirable candidate takes office – thoughts like “I’ll donate to causes that are important to me” and “I’ll attend protests.”
Choose your actions with intention
Another tool for managing your anxiety is to consider whether your behaviors are affecting how you feel.
Remember, for instance, the goal of 24-hour news networks is to increase ratings. It’s in their interest to keep you riveted to your screens by making it seem like important announcements are imminent. As a result, it may feel difficult to disconnect and take part in your usual self-care behavior.
Try telling yourself, “If something happens, someone will text me,” and go for a walk or, better yet, to bed. Keeping up with healthy habits can help reduce your vulnerability to uncontrolled anxiety.
It’s not on your shoulders to solve every single problem in the world. AP Photo/John Hanna
Post-Election Day, you may continue to feel drawn to the news and motivated to show up – whether that means donating, volunteering or protesting – for a variety of causes you think will be affected by the election results. Many people describe feeling guilty if they say no or disengage, leading them to overcommit and wind up overwhelmed.
If this sounds like you, try reminding yourself that taking a break from politics to cook, engage with your family or friends, get some work done or go to the gym does not mean you don’t care. In fact, keeping up with the activities that fuel you will give you the energy to contribute to important causes more meaningfully.
Shannon Sauer-Zavala receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says that as far as Fiji is concerned, Fijians of Indian descent are Fijian.
While Fiji is part of the Pacific, Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific peoples in New Zealand; instead, they are listed under Indian and Asian on the Stats NZ website.
“The ‘Fijian Indian’ ethnic group is currently classified under ‘Asian,’ in the subcategory ‘Indian’, along with other diasporic Indian ethnic groups,” Stats NZ told RNZ Pacific.
“This has been the case since 2005 and is in line with an ethnographic profile that includes people with a common language, customs, and traditions.
“Stats NZ is aware of concerns some have about this classification, and it is an ongoing point of discussion with stakeholders.”
The Fijian Indian community in Aotearoa has long opposed this and raised the issue again at a community event Rabuka attended in Auckland’s Māngere ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa last month.
“As far as Fiji is concerned, [Indo-Fijians] are Fijians,” he said.
‘A matter of sovereignty’ When asked what his message to New Zealand on the issue would be, he said: “I cannot; that is a matter of sovereignty, the sovereign decision by the government of New Zealand. What they call people is their sovereign right.
“As far as we are concerned, we hope that they will be treated as Fijians.”
More than 60,000 people were transferred from all parts of British India to work in Fiji between 1879 and 1916 as indentured labourers.
Today, they make up over 32 percent of the total population, according to Fiji Bureau of Statistics’ 2017 Population Census.
Sangam community NZ leader and former Nadi mayor Salesh Mudaliar . . . “If you do a DNA or do a blood test, we are more of Fijian than anything else. We are not Indian.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Now many, like Sangam community NZ leader and former Nadi Mayor Salesh Mudaliar, say they are more Fijian than Indian.
“If you do a DNA or do a blood test, we are more of Fijian than anything else. We are not Indian,” Mudaliar said.
The indentured labourers, who came to be known as the Girmitiyas, as they were bound by a girmit — a Hindi pronunciation of the English word “agreement”.
RNZ Pacific had approached the Viti Council e Aotearoa for their views on the issue. However, they refused to comment, saying that its chair “has opted out of this interview.”
“Topic itself is misleading bordering on disinformation [and] misinformation from an Indigenous Fijian perspective and overly sensitive plus short notice.”
‘Struggling for identity’ “We are Pacific Islanders. If you come from Tonga or Samoa, you are a Pacific Islander,” Mudaliar said.
“When [Indo-Fijians] come from Fiji, we are not. We are not a migrant to Fiji. We have been there for [over 140] years.”
“The community is still struggling for its identity here in New Zealand . . . we are still not [looked after].
He said they had tried to lobby the New Zealand government for their status but without success.
“Now it is the National government, and no one seems to be listening to us in understanding the situation.
“If we can have an open discussion on this, coming to the same table, and knowing what our problem is, then it would be really appreciated.”
Fijians of Indian descent with Prime Minister Rabuka at the community event in Auckland last month. Image: Facebook/Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Lifting quality of data Stats NZ said it was aware of the need to lift the quality of ethnicity data across the government data system.
“Public consultation in 2019 determined a need for an in-depth review of the Ethnicity Standard,” the data agency said.
In 2021, Stats NZ undertook a large scoping exercise with government agencies, researchers, iwi Māori, and community groups to help establish the scope of the review.
Stats NZ subsequently stood up an expert working group to progress the review.
“This review is still underway, and Stats NZ will be conducting further consultation, so we will have more to say in due course,” it said.
“Classifying ethnicity and ethnic identity is extremely complex, and it is important Stats NZ takes the time to consult extensively and ensure we get this right,” the agency added.
This week, Fijians celebrate the Hindu festival of lights, Diwali. The nation observes a public holiday to mark the day, and Fijians of all backgrounds get involved.
Prime Minister Rabuka’s message is for all Fijians to be kind to each other.
“Act in accordance with the spirit of Diwali and show kindness to those who are going through difficulties,” he told local reporters outside Parliament yesterday.
“It is a good time for us to abstain from using bad language against each other on social media.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Days from the US presidential election, the polls are showing the outcome of the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump remains a nail biter.
With the United States our closest ally, the result could have potential implications for Australia in areas such as climate change policy, defence and the economy. If there is a Trump victory, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will also have the challenge of building a relationship with an unpredictable character.
To discuss the state of the contest and what comes next, we’re joined by Bruce Wolpe, senior fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. Wolpe worked with the Democrats in Congress, and on the staff of Julia Gillard. Last year, he authored the book, Trump’s Australia.
Wolpe regards the election as too close to call.
They’re just deadlocked in two fundamental respects. National head-to-head across the country – the popular vote – they’re 49-48, 47-47, no one cracking 50, and there’s no clear favourite. And then that same pattern exists in all of the seven swing states that will decide the election per the Electoral College.
In terms of key issues:
Just as it is here in Australia, hip pocket is the strongest determinant of how you will vote, and so inflation and the state of the economy, in the lived experience, is the number one issue. Americans and Australians share the same experience over the past post-COVID years where there’s been an outbreak of inflation and high interest rates. And that means that the basket of goods that you buy day in, day out, week in, week out, from the supermarket to your petrol to your insurance prices are up between 10 and 40%.
The second big issue is immigration. As I’m sure you know from looking at the news over the past three years, just following things, the southern border with Mexico has been effectively out of control. It’s back under control but in that time, perhaps millions of people have flowed into the United States.
The third big issue is abortion rights, reproductive health rights and its future. The Supreme Court two years ago repealed Roe v Wade, which established a right found in the Constitution for women to take care of their reproductive health services. That’s the first time that a universal human constitutional right has been repealed since Dred Scott in the Civil War [denying slaves’ rights]. Three generations of women have grown up with the protections for them.
This has become a very powerful issue. And 52% of all voters are women.
On what either a Harris or a Trump administration might look like for Australia:
I think with Harris, we would just see very strong continuity with Biden. I mean, on foreign policy issues, they really have worked together.
The relationship with Australia is fine. Her relationship with the Prime Minister is absolutely fine. They know each other, can work together, a very comfortable working relationship.
[As to] Trump and Australia: first, I really have to say in the first [Trump] term, I think Australia had the most untroubled relationship with Trump than any other country in the world, and that includes Israel, that includes Europe, that includes Canada.
There is a structural trade surplus that the United States has with Australia. So Australia is not number one on the hit list of nations that are, quote, taking advantage of the United States in their trade agreements. […] It will start off in Trump’s head with all the countries that he wants to go after – I don’t think Australia is high on the list.
However, on a personal level, Wolpe says there might be some issues between Trump and Albanese:
I think personally it will be rocky at the start for several reasons. First, Trump will be briefed on everything that the Prime Minister has said on him and his presidency. And he attacked Trump for the January 6th insurrection. He’s for abortion rights and attacked the ruling of the Supreme Court. He’s for gun control, and Australia has a completely different posture on gun control, and Trump is strong on the Second Amendment. If Trump looks at the agenda of the Albanese government, it is a mirror image of Joe Biden’s domestic policy agenda adjusted for realities in both countries. But it’s the same deal.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Philippine Supreme Court has granted temporary protection to an environmental activist abducted in Pangasinan earlier this year.
In its resolution dated September 9 — but only made public this week — the court granted Francisco “Eco” Dangla III’s petition for temporary protection, and prohibited the respondents, including high-ranking soldiers and police officers, to be near the activist’s location.
“Furthermore, you, respondents, and all persons and entities acting and operating under your directions, instructions, and orders are PROHIBITED from entering within a radius of one kilometer of the person, places of residence, work, and present locations of petitioner and his immediate family,” the resolution read.
The respondents are:
Philippine Army chief Lieutenant General Roy Galido
Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Police General Rommel Francisco Marbil
Brigadier General Gulliver Señires (in his capacity as 702nd Brigade commanding general Brigadier)
Ilocos Region police chief Police Brigadier General Lou Evangelista
Police Colonel Jeff Fanged (in his capacity as Pangasinan police chief)
Aside from giving Dangla temporary protection, the court also granted his petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. A writ of amparo is a legal remedy, which is usually a protection order in the form of a restraining order.
The writ of habeas data compels the government to destroy information that could cause harm.
These extraordinary writs are usually invoked by activists and progressives in the Philippines as they face intimidation from the government and its forces.
Dangla’s abduction Dangla and another activist, Joxelle Tiong, were abducted in Pangasinan last March 24.
According to witnesses, they saw two men who were forced to board a vehicle in Barangay Polo, San Carlos City.
The two activists, who who had been red-tagged for their advocacies, were serving as convenors of the Pangasinan People’s Strike for the Environment.
They “vocally defended the people and ecosystems of Pangasinan against the harms of coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, incinerator plants, and offshore mining in Lingayen Gulf,” at the time of their abduction.
Three days later, several groups announced that Dangla and Tiong were found safe, but that the two had gone through a “harrowing ordeal.”
“Bruised but alive” . . . the environmental activists abducted in Pangasinan but found safe, Francisco ‘Eco’ Dangla III (left) and Joxelle ‘Jak’ Tiong. Image: Rappler
The reality The protection given to Dangla is only temporary as the Court of Appeals still needs to conduct hearings on the petition. In other words, the Supreme Court only granted the writ, but the power to whether grant or deny Dangla the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data lies with the Court of Appeals.
There have been instances where the appellate court granted activists the privilege of writ of amparo, like in the case of labour activists Loi Magbanua and Ador Juat, where the court issued permanent protection orders for them and their immediate families.
Unfortunately, this was not the case for other activists, such as young environmentalists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro.
The two were first reported missing by activist groups. Security forces later said they were “safe and sound” and that they had allegedly “voluntarily surrendered” to the military.
However, Tamano and Castro went off-script during a press conference organised by the anti-insurgency task force and revealed that they were actually abducted.
In February, the High Court granted the two temporary protection and their writs of amparo and habeas data petitions. However, the appellate court in August denied the protection order for Tamano and Castro.
Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito fully dissented in the decision and said: “It would be uncharacteristic for the courts, especially this court, to simply fold their arms and ignore the palpable threats to petitioners’ life, liberty and security and just wait for the irreversible to happen to them.”
