Source: New South Wales Government 2
7 April 2025
Stakeholders in the import and shipping industries—including vessel masters, freight forwarders, offshore treatment providers, Biosecurity Industry Participants, importers, customs brokers, principal agents and master consolidators.
Following identification of critical non-compliance, we have suspended M/s Blue Bird Pest Control Pvt. Ltd. (AEI: IN0419MB) from the…
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor
You have to marvel at Donald Trump’s prescience. After his announcement of America’s new tariffs regime on April 2, “liberation day”, the stock markets plummeted, causing faint hearts around the world to quail. Nerves fluttered particularly hard when bond yields started to rise rapidly this week, suggesting a growing lack of confidence in US 30-year debt – traditionally the gold standard for security.
“I don’t want anything to go down,” Trump told a reporter at the weekend. “But sometimes, you have to take medicine to fix something.”
The US president remained bullish on Wednesday morning, taking to his TruthSocial social media platform at 9.37am EDT to proclaim his confidence in US stocks.
And so it proved. Hours later, Trump announced to his followers that he had decided to pause the tariff hikes on all but China while keeping the 10% baseline tariff on all imports. The markets bounced back with alacrity, closing up 9.5% by the end of trading. (Incidentally, Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of TruthSocial, closed up 22.67%.)
It just goes to show, faith may or may not be able to move mountains, but Donald Trump can certainly move markets.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Now it’s all eyes on China to see how the world’s second-largest economy will react to a yet-higher tariff on its exports to the US of 145%.
Announcing to the world he was targeting China, the US president wrote that he was basing his decision on the “lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets”, and that “hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable”.
But based on Beijing’s initial reaction, it’s unlikely that Xi Jinping will be joining all the other world leaders who Trump says queued up over the past couple of days to “kiss his ass”. The messages from China’s leadership are that two can play at that game, and that Trump’s gambit “will end in failure”.
China had imposed an immediate 84% tariff on all US exports, while reassuring the White House that the “the door to dialogue is open”.
China expert Tom Harper of the University of East London believes Xi is now a different, more confident Chinese president than the one who granted some small concessions to Trump when he first imposed tariffs on China in 2017. Harper sees the likelihood of a “tumultuous period ahead for relations between China and the US” – and warns that the Chinese people may be more resilient to the economic shock a trade war brings than the US public.
Looking back at what China considers a period of humiliation at the hands of western powers (notably Great Britain) in the 19th century, Harper says there’s a strong sense of “never again” in the Chinese psyche, which may well be triggered by this latest US aggression.
Read more:
What the spiralling trade war means for relations between the US and China
But why roll back on the tariffs on the rest of the world? Australian economists James Giesecke and Robert Waschik believe the answer is simple: the harm that would have been done to the US economy. Their modelling suggests that “the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth and, most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards”.
Giesecke and Waschik conclude the damage would have been serious and long term, increasing US unemployment by two-thirds and reducing US long-term GDP, resulting in a “permanent reduction in US global economic power”.
Read more:
This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge
The aim of the Trump administration in introducing tariffs is to stimulate a return of manufacturing to the US – which is why they applied them to goods only while ignoring services. James Scott of King’s College London believes a lot of countries fetishise manufacturing as a sort of deeply ingrained throwback to when “pre-historic experiences of finding food, fuel and shelter dominated all other activities”.
But most western economies have developed beyond heavy goods manufacturing, for the simple reason that countries with larger and lower-paid workforces are able to produce and ship goods at a fraction of the cost. Tik-Tok user Ben Lau posted this disturbingly funny vision of the return of large-scale manufacturing to the US.
Scott believes it’s highly unlikely to come to this – and in any case, that it’s pointless to blame globalisation for the loss of US manufacturing jobs when rising productivity in other countries and automation have had much more impact.
The lesson from history, writes Scott, is that with the retreat of colonialism came the industrialisation of the countries that had been major markets for manufactured goods produced by the western powers. In short, he concludes: “President Trump is mistaken if he really believes that tariffs will bring a new golden age of manufacturing. The world has changed.”
Read more:
Trump thinks tariffs can bring back the glory days of US manufacturing. Here’s why he’s wrong
Iran has had a rough 18 months or so. Its economy is on the floor thanks to western sanctions, the “real” currency rate (the rate you get on the street) is now close to 1 million rials to the US dollar, and large sections of the population are very unhappy with their leadership.
So, when Iran’s foreign minister arrives in Oman for talks with the US at the weekend, there’s plenty of incentive to strike some kind of deal – even without the US president’s warning that Iran will be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail to deliver an agreement for Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Ali Bilgic, a Middle East specialist at Loughborough University, writes that while both sides have their reasons for wanting progress at the talks, things are likely to be hampered by a lack of trust on both sides. And it’s no coincidence that while Trump announced the talks after a meeting with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iranian deputy foreign minister travelled to Moscow this week, where he met his counterparts from China and Russia. With hardliners currently in the ascendancy in Tehran and the Trump-Netanyahu axis very much in evidence in Washington, a lot could go wrong.
Read more:
Iran and US to enter high-stakes nuclear negotiations – hampered by a lack of trust
America’s other allies, Nato, gathered in Brussels at the end of last week for a foreign ministers meeting ahead of June’s summit at The Hague. As Amelia Hadfield – a defence and security policy expert at the University of Surrey – reports, there’s a growing air of urgency among the allies that they need to find a way to avoid a unilateral withdrawal of the US from the alliance, and that they’ll need at least some answers before meeting at The Hague.
Hadfield walks us through the gradual but growing distance between Washington and the rest of the alliance, which has come to a head under Trump but has been some years in the making.
Read more:
Why Nato is struggling to rebuild itself in an increasingly threatening world
Since the incoming Trump administration announced it was freezing most USAID programmes as of January 20 for at least 90 days, vital lifelines keeping many thousands, if not millions, of desperate people in the poorest countries around the world have been cut off.
One such country is Sudan, where a bitter and bloody civil war has raged for two years, leading to the situation being described by the United Nations as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Naomi Ruth Pendle, an expert in humanitarian development at the University of Bath, works closely with aid workers in South Kordofan, a region on the border with South Sudan which is collapsing under the weight of refugees from the civil war – and which faces a bitter famine unless the aid freeze is lifted immediately.
Her moving account of the plight of the Sudanese people is made more vivid by accounts provided by people working on the ground in South Kordofan, where the aid freeze couldn’t have come at a worse time. January, when the freeze was announced, is usually the best time to increase the flow of humanitarian aid in the region – as the supplies from last year’s harvest begin to dwindle, and just before the rains make roads impassable.
Pendle writes: “I’m now getting reports from South Kordofan of households not lighting a fire for up to four days at a time, which means the family is not eating. And, as ever, it is the children and the elderly who are particularly vulnerable.”
Read more:
USAID: the human cost of Donald Trump’s aid freeze for a war-torn part of Sudan
I spent a happy year living in Khartoum in the mid-1980s teaching English at the university there. During that time, I was able to travel widely around Sudan and developed an enduring affection for the people and respect for their resilience and ingenuity in the face of often terrible hardships.
So I found Justin Willis’s account of the decades of conflict that have riven Sudan particularly compelling. Willis, a professor of history at Durham University, looks back through the country’s history – from its foundation through conquest in the 19th century by the Egyptian branch of the Ottoman empire, via British control, to independence. And after independence, pretty much non-stop wars.
Willis believes that Sudan’s main problem is that its army commanders have always believed they are the natural rulers of the country. The current conflict is between two rival army commanders and their followers.
The official army, the Sudanese Armed Forces, recaptured Khartoum at the end of March. There have been reports of savage violence against civilians in the fortnight since. Meanwhile, the rival Rapid Support Forces continue to murder with seeming impunity in Darfur in western Sudan – where I once spent an unforgettable week trekking in the extinct volcano, Jebel Marra.
Read more:
Sudan civil war: despite appearances this is not a failed state – yet
World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.
– ref. Trump tariff backflip brings a US trade war with China into the crosshairs – https://theconversation.com/trump-tariff-backflip-brings-a-us-trade-war-with-china-into-the-crosshairs-254326
Source: New South Wales Government 2
08 April 2025
All clients required to use Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry web-based applications during this planned maintenance period.
All users of the Seasonal Pests (SeaPest) system.
All clients required to use the eCertificate exports portal who will be required to view or download export certification during this planned maintenance period.
All clients required to use the Export / Next Export Documentation (…
Source: New South Wales Government 2
09 April 2025
All importers and customs brokers who will be required to lodge imported cargo documentation to the department for biosecurity assessment during this planned maintenance period.
All users of the Cargo Online Lodgement System Business to Government (COLSB2G) system.
To support a system release, there will be a scheduled outage to both the Cargo Online Lodgement System (COLS), and COLSB2G from 23:00…
Source: New South Wales Government 2
09 April 2025
All clients submitting the below declarations:
All clients required to use the Export / Next Export Documentation (EXDOC/NEXDOC) systems during this planned maintenance period.
Source: New South Wales Government 2
9 April 2025
Stakeholders in the import and shipping industries—including vessel masters, freight forwarders, offshore treatment providers, Biosecurity Industry Participants, importers, customs brokers, principal agents and master consolidators.
Following identification of critical non-compliance, we have suspended M/s Bhuma Sky Fumigation Services Pvt Ltd. (AEI: IN0629MB) and M/s Max Vision Pest Control &…
Source: New South Wales Government 2
10 April 2025
Stakeholders in the import and shipping industries—including vessel masters, freight forwarders, offshore treatment providers, Biosecurity Industry Participants, importers, customs brokers, principal agents and master consolidators.
Following the identification of biosecurity concerns, we have listed Acquarius Fumigation Pte Ltd (AEI: SG0010TP) and Inavab Biotech Pte Ltd (AEI: SG0011TP) as unacceptable…
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Robin Kelly IL
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (IL-02), co-chair of the House Democratic Steering & Policy Committee, held a hearing on the Republicans’ damaging scheme to cut veterans’ benefits. Rep. Kelly heard directly from three veterans, including one who was recently fired by President Donald Trump from a senior post at Veterans Affairs (VA).
Rep. Kelly asked witness Sharda Fornnarrino, who is a nurse at the VA, what she would tell President Trump and Elon Musk regarding their service cuts.
“I would tell them, ‘We’re not going to give up on the VA,’” said Fornnarrino. “We’ll continue to organize and fight back against their attacks. Our nurses are really proud to work at the VA.”
Rep. Kelly adjourned the hearing with the following full transcript:
“Donald Trump’s extreme policies aren’t just tanking our economy and making life harder on the American people. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and extremists appointed in their Administration are specifically targeting our nation’s veterans. They are denying veterans the care they deserve by defunding VA hospitals, closing offices, and taking a chainsaw to programs like Social Security. They are breaking the promise of the PACT Act. Freezing funding. Stopping hiring.
“They have fired thousands of veteran workers from important jobs in our government—jobs that make sure Americans get their benefits on time, that air travel remains safe, and so much more.
“With more than 16 million veterans in America, you would think—or at the very least hope—that Donald Trump and Elon Musk would have their best interests at heart.
“But they don’t. Instead of standing up for those 16 million veterans, Trump and Musk are standing up for the handful of billionaire donors that are bankrolling the Republican Party.
“And just as they do that, they are triggering a reckless economic disaster right before our eyes. Democrats stand with our veterans and the American people. We believe in protecting hard-earned benefits—not prioritizing a billionaire’s bottom line.
“We know that we owe a debt to each and every single man and woman that has served our nation in uniform. Donald Trump might not care about repaying those debts, but Democrats absolutely do care. That is our job. George, James, Sharda, Will—know this: We will not stop fighting for you.”
Watch the full hearing here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) released the following statement following her “no” vote on the Republican budget proposal:
“The American people are demanding relief from skyrocketing costs. Instead, Donald Trump and Republicans are launching a full-scale assault on the financial security of hard-working families. As if tanking the economy with temper tariffs and inflating costs wasn’t enough, Congressional Republicans just closed their eyes and handed Trump the power to rob everyday people to fund tax breaks for billionaires.
“In my district, which ranks fourth highest in the nation for Medicaid enrollment, over 409,000 people are on the verge of losing their health care; 225,000 individuals stand to lose the nutrition assistance that puts food on their tables; and the futures of 13,411 students who rely on Pell Grants are now in jeopardy.
“While my Republican colleagues abandon their constituents and submit to the grifter-in-chief, I will stand firm–eyes wide open–and fight to protect the programs that keep Angelenos alive.”
# # #
Source: {United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bobby Scott (3rd District of Virginia)
Headline: Labor Leaders Introduce Bill to Raise Minimum Wage
As originally released by the Committee on Education and Workforce, Democrats
WASHINGTON – Today, Ranking Member Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA-03), House Committee on Education and Workforce, and Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2025. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Raise the Wage Act would gradually raise the minimum wage to $17 by 2030 and give roughly 22 million Americans a long-overdue raise.
After more than fifteen years with no increase in the federal minimum wage—the longest period in U.S. history—millions of our nation’s workers are working full-time jobs but are still struggling to make ends meet. The Raise the Wage Act is good for workers, good for business, and good for the economy. When we put money in the pockets of workers, they will spend that money at local businesses.
“No person working full-time in America should be living in poverty. The Raise the Wage Act will increase the pay and standard of living for nearly 22 million workers across this country. Raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for business, and good for the economy. When we put money in the pockets of American workers, they will spend that money in their communities,”said Scott.
“The $7.25 an hour minimum wage is a starvation wage. It must be raised to a living wage – at least $17 an hour,” Sanders said. “In the year 2025, a job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, we can no longer tolerate millions of workers trying to survive on just $10 or $12 an hour. Congress can no longer ignore the needs of the working class of this country. The time to act is now,”said Sanders.
TheRaise the Wage Act of 2025would:
The Raise the Wage Act of 2025 has 142 original House co-sponsors, including Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (VA-03), Greg Casar (TX-35), Jahana Hayes (CT-05), Alma S. Adams (NC-12), Gabe Amo (RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Becca Balint (VT-00), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Donald S. Beyer (VA-08), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Shontel M. Brown (OH-11), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Salud O. Carbajal (CA-24), André Carson (IN-07), Sean Casten (IL-06), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Judy Chu (CA-28), Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), James E. Clyburn (SC-06), Herbert Conaway (NJ-03), Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11), Joe Courtney (CT-02), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jason Crow (CO-06), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-03), Suzan K. DelBene (WA-01), Christopher R. Deluzio (PA-17), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Cleo Fields (LA-06), Bill Foster (IL-11), Valerie P. Foushee (NC-04), Laura Friedman (CA-30), Maxwell Frost (FL-10), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Al Green (TX-09), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Val T. Hoyle (OR-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Julie Johnson (TX-32), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Bill Keating (MA-09), Robin L. Kelly (IL-02), Timothy M. Kennedy (NY-26), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Summer Lee (PA-12), Teresa Leger Fernandez (NM-03), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Seth Magaziner (RI-02), John W. Mannion (NY-22), Doris O. Matsui (CA-07), Lucy McBath (GA-06), Sarah McBride (DE-At Large), Jennifer McClellan (VA-04), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Morgan McGarvey (KY-03), James P. McGovern (MA-02), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Robert Menendez (NJ-08), Grace Meng (NY-06), Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Joseph D. Morelle (NY-25), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Frank J. Mrvan (IN-01), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Joe Neguse (CO-02), Donald Norcross (NJ-01), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-At Large), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ-06), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19),Brittany Pettersen (CO-07), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Deborah K. Ross (NC-02), Patrick Ryan (NY-18), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Linda T. Sánchez (CA-38), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09), Bradley Scott Schneider (IL-10), Terri A. Sewell (AL-07), Brad Sherman (CA-32), Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Darren Soto (FL-09), Melanie A. Stansbury (NM-01), Haley M. Stevens (MI-11), Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10), Thomas R. Suozzi (NY-03), Eric Swalwell (CA-14), Mark Takano (CA-39), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Jill N. Tokuda (HI-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Lori Trahan (MA-03), Lauren Underwood (IL-14), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Nikema Williams (GA-05), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24).
The Raise the Wage Act of 2025 has been endorsed by 85 organizations including, AFL-CIO, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), American Council of the Blind, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Friends Service Committee, American Public Health Association, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Autistic People of Color Fund, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Care in Action, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR), Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues, Coalition on Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA), Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd U.S. Provinces, the Council for Global Equality, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), Demos, Economic Policy Institute (EPI), Equal Pay Today, Family Values @ Work, Feminist Majority Foundation, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), The General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church, Gig Workers Rising, Indivisible, Institute for Policy Studies’ Poverty Project, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), Justice for Migrant Women, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Legal Momentum, Milwaukee Area Service & Hospitality Workers Union, MomsRising, Movement Advancement Project (MAP), National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of Social Workers, National Black Worker Center, National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), National Coalition for the Homeless, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Institute, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project (NELP), National Employment Lawyers Association, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), The National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Disabled South, Oasis Legal Services, One Fair Wage, Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People Power United, Popular Democracy in Action, Pride at Work AFL-CIO, Public Advocacy for Kids, Public Justice Center, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Southern Poverty Law Center, Union for Reform Judaism, UNITE HERE, United Autoworkers (UAW), United Church of Christ, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), United for Respect, United Steelworkers (USW), Voices for Progress, Worker Justice Center of New York, Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group, Working Partnerships USA, Workplace Fairness, Workplace Justice Lab, and Worksafe.
To read the bill text for the Raise the Wage Act of 2025, click here.
To read the fact sheet on the Raise the Wage Act of 2025, click here.
To read the section-by-section Raise the Wage Act of 2025, click here.
###
Source: US National Oceanographic Data Center
The March global surface temperature was 2.36°F (1.31°C) above the 20th-century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C), making it the third-warmest March on record. According to NCEI’s Global Annual Temperature Outlook, there is a 6% chance that 2025 will rank as the warmest year on record.
It was the second-warmest March for the global land air temperature and the second-warmest March for the global ocean surface temperature. Europe and Oceania had their warmest Marches on record, and Africa ranked third warmest.
March temperatures were above average across much of the global land surface, particularly over the Arctic, Alaska, the eastern U.S., most of Europe, northwest Africa, and Australia. Much of central Canada and eastern Asia were much colder than average, and a few other areas such as southern Africa were slightly below normal. Sea surface temperatures were above average over most areas, while parts of the eastern tropical Pacific and parts of the Southern Ocean were below average.
The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in March was well below average, ranking seventh smallest on record. Snow cover over North America and Greenland was below average (by 170,000 square miles), and Eurasia was also below average (by 550,000 square miles). A lack of snow cover was particularly obvious over the United States and Europe.
Global sea ice extent was the second smallest in the 47-year record at 6.60 million square miles, which was 780,000 square miles below the 1991–2020 average. Arctic sea ice extent was below average (by 340,000 square miles), ranking lowest on record and Antarctic extent was below average (by 440,000 square miles), ranking fourth lowest on record.
Eight named storms occurred across the globe in March, which was slightly above the long-term average of six. A record five named storms occurred in the southwestern Indian Ocean while four occurred in the Australian region (one storm traversed the two basins).
For a more complete summary of climate conditions and events, see our March 2025 Global Climate Report or explore our Climate at a Glance Global Time Series.
Source: US Congressman Mike Lawler (R, NY-17)
Washington, D.C. – 4/9/2025… This week, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17) and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers reintroduced the Remote Access Security Act. This legislation closes a loophole in U.S. export control law that has allowed CCP-aligned companies to access restricted American technology through cloud services. The bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, passing with a 51-0 vote.
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) gave the U.S. the authority to regulate the export of sensitive items to ensure that advanced tech with military implications does not fall into the hands of our adversaries. But as technology has progressed, controlled items may be accessed remotely, allowing our adversaries to skirt the law. This bill defines “remote access” and adds remote access provisions into ECRA, closing this loophole.
“Our export controls are only as strong as the weakest link – and right now, China is exploiting us,” said Congressman Lawler (NY-17). “While we’ve blocked the physical export of sensitive chips and technology, they are still accessible through cloud technologies. That’s unacceptable.”
“We cannot allow the CCP to continue to access this technology. This bill ensures our laws reflect the realities of the digital age,” Congressman Lawler concluded. “I’m proud this legislation passed with overwhelming support in Committee and look forward to pushing forward on this effort to get it signed into law.”
Cosponsors include Reps. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Rich McCormick (GA-07), Brad Sherman (CA-32), John Moolenaar (MI-02), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Bill Huizenga (MI-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), and Young Kim (CA-40).
Congressman Lawler is one of the most bipartisan members of Congress and represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is just north of New York City and contains all or parts of Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester Counties. He was rated the most effective freshman lawmaker in the 118th Congress, 8th overall, surpassing dozens of committee chairs.
###
Full text of the bill can be found HERE.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif)
Washington, DC – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) recently questioned U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer at a recent House Ways and Means Committee. During his line of questioning, Rep. Panetta called out the faulty economic data behind the Trump Administration’s chaotic tariff policies.
During the hearing, President Trump announced on social media that the Administration would place a 90-day pause on new tariffs on most nations, while raiding tariffs on China to 125 percent. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said he was not informed about this new trade policy.
“It is the largest self-inflicted wound to our economy in history, a self-inflicted wound that if it stays in place, it could constitute the largest tax increase on working families in more than 40 years, costing households more than $3,800,” said Rep. Panetta. “I know that the president is saying, ‘we’re getting screwed,’ but the fact is, Trump is screwing us with these incoherent and inchoate tariffs. In the short term and in the long term, domestically and internationally, and for our economy and for our national security, they are making us weaker.”
Rep. Panetta questions the Administration’s top trade representative.
Click play on the above video or click HERE to watch his remarks.
A transcript of Rep. Jimmy Panetta’s remarks during the Ways and Means Committee hearing is below:
“Before this week, talked to a lot of my colleagues about you. They actually said a lot of good things about you. You had a good reputation until this week, I have to say, because I actually wanted to work with you on solutions when it comes to free trade agreements. I think we still can once we get past this, and I hope that’s the case, but unfortunately, you’re defending a policy here from President Trump that’s absolutely incoherent.
“It’s a self-imposed tariff regime of ten times the amount of tariffs that were in place before this president took office. It is the largest self-inflicted wound to our economy in history, a self-inflicted wound that if it stays in place, it could constitute the largest tax increase on working families in more than 40 years, costing households more than $3,800.
“Per year, a self-inflicted wound that prompted one of the largest three day moves on the markets since World War II, and it’s a self-inflicted wound that’s leading investors to expect a severe economic slowdown. Eight years ago, this president talked about American carnage. Little did we know that he would create economic carnage that is spreading something similar across the entire global economy.
“Now the reason for these tariffs is based on a national emergency that we have trade deficits according to him and you. Unfortunately, the president’s thinking about trade is reflected in this policy. This weekend, after the markets tanked, after a small businesses fretted and after the president played golf all weekend, the president said, I consider any trade deficit a loss.
“That type of scorecard thinking combined with the president’s 40-year fetish for tariffs. That has put this policy in place and put us in the global economy in this position. Now, I know the president is painting all trade deficits as bad, but they are a product of larger macroeconomic factors relating to a number of things as you know well, savings, investments, cultural demographics, and so on.
“But the President is acting completely irrational when it comes to trade deficits. He believes that trade deficits are subsidies paid by Americans to other countries. His scorecard ignores our trade surpluses and services to the tune of $250 billion annually. He is oblivious to the relationship of trade deficits to foreign investment in America in that when we send dollars abroad for goods and services, most of those dollars ultimately come back to America, and he refuses to grasp that tariffs are taxes paid by American importers and Americans, not foreigners.
“A perfect example of this unreasonableness is our reasonable trade deficit with Canada. The reason we have a trade deficit with Canada is because starting with FDR, we entered into an agreement that would sell US oil at well below market prices. We entered into and maintain that deal because we may and we maintain the trade deficit with Canada so that we can buy cheap oil, which is a huge benefit for America.
“And if we took that oil out of our trade relationship, guess what? We’d have a trade surplus. Yet Trump says we’re getting ripped off even though we are actually getting the benefit of that sweetheart deal. Now, absolutely, sometimes a trade deficit is a loss. Foreign trade barriers are a problem that includes tariffs and non-tariff barriers, but there are ways to remedy these things.
“Free trade agreements don’t require a tariff policy that cripples our economy. Yet due to the President’s fetish for tariffs and superficial thinking on trade deficits, the president has imposed a trade policy that makes the global baseline of 10% with countries that have trade surpluses like Singapore, Australia, Netherlands.
“Countries we have free trade agreements are getting tariffs at 10%. Countries that are free trade countries are getting tariff at 10%. It does not make sense.
“If other countries eliminate their tariffs and we eliminate ours, that’s just deal making. And we don’t raise revenue and businesses don’t relocate to the us. If it’s a permanent revenues source and you want to relocate to the us, then going to have these tariffs permanently and there are not going to be any deals.
“So, what is clear is that you can’t have it both ways. Additionally, tariffs undermine our national security as we’re seeing in the Indo-Pacific region. Look, I know the president wants to bring back the rust belt. I get that. But a big part of that is political. It’s nostalgia. And nostalgia, as they say, is the rust of memory.
“We are not victims here. Our economy is the envy of the world, partly because it was our choice to invest in other countries over saving. It was our choice to have bilateral trade deficits. This is not some unexpected crisis here. This is no extraordinary or unusual threat. This is because we chose to invest in other countries where labor is cheaper and therefore products are cheaper.
“And as we know it’s okay for working families to want to pay low prices for products in this country. I know that the president is saying, ‘we’re getting screwed,’ but the fact is, is that Trump is screwing us with these incoherent tariffs. That in the short term and in the long term, domestically and internationally, and for our economy and for our national security, they are making us weaker.”
###
Source: The Conversation – USA – By John P. Jackson, Jr., Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, Michigan State University
In the recent flurry of executive orders from President Donald Trump, one warned of “a distorted narrative” about race “driven by ideology rather than truth.” It singled out a current exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum titled “The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture” as an example. The exhibit displays over two centuries of sculptures that show how art has produced and reproduced racial attitudes and ideologies.
The executive order condemns the exhibition because it “promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating ‘Race is a human invention.’”
The executive order apparently objects to sentiments such as this: “Although a person’s genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance, race itself is a social construct.” But those words are not from the Smithsonian; they are from the American Society of Human Genetics.
Scientists reject the idea that race is biologically real. The claim that race is a “biological reality” cuts against modern scientific knowledge.
I’m a historian who specializes in the scientific study of race. The executive order places “social construct” in opposition to “biological reality.” The history of both concepts reveals how modern science landed at the idea that race was invented by people, not nature.
At the turn of the 20th century, scientists believed humans could be divided into distinct races based on physical features. According to this idea, a scientist could identify physical differences in groups of people, and if those differences were passed on to succeeding generations, the scientist had correctly identified a racial “type.”
The results of this “typological” method were chaotic. A frustrated Charles Darwin in 1871 listed 13 scientists who identified anywhere between two and 63 races, a confusion that persisted for the next six decades. There were almost as many racial classifications as racial classifiers because no two scientists could seem to agree on what physical characteristics were best to measure, or how to measure them.
One intractable problem with racial classifications was that the differences in human physical traits were tiny, so scientists struggled to use them to differentiate between groups. The pioneering African American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois noted in 1906, “It is impossible to draw a color line between black and other races … in all physical characteristics the Negro race cannot be set off by itself.”
But scientists tried. In an 1899 anthropological study, William Ripley classified people using head shape, hair type, pigmentation and stature. In 1926, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton, the leading racial typologist in the world, listed 24 anatomical traits, such as “the presence or absence of a postglenoid tubercle and a pharyngeal fossa or tubercle” and “the degree of bowing of the radius and ulna” while admitting “this list is not, of course, exhaustive.”
All this confusion was the opposite of how science should operate: As the tools improved and as measurements became more precise, the object of study − race − became more and more muddled.
When sculptor Malvina Hoffman’s “Races of Mankind” exhibit opened at Chicago’s Field Museum in 1933, it characterized race as a biological reality, despite its elusive definition. World-renowned anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith wrote the introduction to the exhibition’s catalog.
Keith dismissed science as the surest method to distinguish race; one knows a person’s race because “a single glance, picks out the racial features more certainly than could a band of trained anthropologists.” Keith’s view perfectly captured the view that race must be real, for he saw it all around him, even though science could never establish that reality.
In the scientific study of race, however, things were about to change.
By 1933, the rise of Nazism had added urgency to the scientific study of race. As anthropologist Sherwood Washburn wrote in 1944, “If we are to discuss racial matters with the Nazis, we had better be right.”
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, two new scientific ideas came to fruition. First, scientists began looking to culture rather than biology as the driver of differences among groups of people. Second, the rise of population genetics challenged the biological reality of race.
In 1943, anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish wrote a short work also titled The Races of Mankind. Writing for a popular audience, they argued that people are far more alike than different, and our differences owe to culture and learning, not biology. An animated cartoon short later gave these ideas wider circulation.
Benedict and Weltfish argued that while people did, indeed, differ physically, those differences were meaningless in that all races could learn and all were capable. “Progress in civilization is not the monopoly of one race or subrace,” they wrote. “Negroes made iron tools and wove fine cloth for their clothing when fair-skinned Europeans wore skins and knew nothing of iron.” The cultural explanation for different human lifestyles was more robust than confused appeals to an elusive biological race.
The turn to culture was consistent with a deep change in biological knowledge.
Theodosius Dobzhansky was a preeminent biologist of the 20th century. He and other biologists were interested in evolutionary changes. Races, which supposedly didn’t change over time, were therefore useless for understanding how organisms evolved.
A new tool, what scientists called a “genetic population,” was much more valuable. The geneticist, Dobzhansky held, identified a population based on the genes it shared in order to study change in organisms. Over time natural selection would shape how the population evolved. But if that population didn’t shed light on natural selection, the geneticist must abandon it and work with a new population based on a different set of shared genes. The important point is that, whatever population the geneticist chose, it was changing over time. No population was a fixed and stable entity, as human races were supposed to be.
Sherwood Washburn, who happened to be Dobzhansky’s close friend, brought those ideas into anthropology. He recognized that the point of genetics was not classifying people into fixed groups. The point was to understand the process of human evolution. This change reversed everything taught by Hooton, his old teacher.
Writing in 1951, Washburn argued, “There is no way to justify the division of a … population into a series of racial types” because doing so would be pointless. Presuming any group to be unchanging stood in the way of understanding evolutionary changes. A genetic population was not “real”; it was an invention of the scientist using it as a lens to understand organic change.
A good way to understand this profound difference relates to roller coasters.
Anyone who’s been to an amusement park has seen signs that precisely define who is tall enough to ride a given roller coaster. But no one would say they define a “real” category of “tall” or “short” people, as another roller coaster might have a different height requirement. The signs define who is tall enough only for riding this particular roller coaster, and that’s all. It’s a tool for keeping people safe, not a category defining who is “really” tall.
Similarly, geneticists use genetic populations as “an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans” or because they have “fundamental implications for understanding the genetic basis of diseases.”
Anyone trying to pound a nail with a screwdriver soon realizes that tools are good for tasks they were designed for and useless for anything else. Genetic populations are tools for specific biological uses, not for classifying people into “real” groups by race.
Whoever wanted to classify people, Washburn argued, must give the “important reasons for subdividing our whole species.”
The Smithsonian’s exhibit shows how racialized sculpture was “both a tool of oppression and domination and one of liberation and empowerment.” Science agrees with its claim that race is a human invention and not a biological reality.
The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.
John P. Jackson, Jr. 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.
– ref. Race isn’t a ‘biological reality,’ contrary to recent political claims − here’s how scientific consensus on race developed in the 20th century – https://theconversation.com/race-isnt-a-biological-reality-contrary-to-recent-political-claims-heres-how-scientific-consensus-on-race-developed-in-the-20th-century-253504
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Giesecke, Professor, Centre of Policy Studies and the Impact Project, Victoria University
The Trump administration has announced a 90-day pause on its plan to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all US imports. But the pause does not extend to China, where import duties will rise to around 125%.
The move signals a partial retreat from what had been shaping up as a broad and aggressive trade war. For most countries, the US will now apply a 10% baseline tariff for the next three months. But the White House made clear that its tariffs on Chinese imports will remain in place.
So why did President Trump back away from the broader tariff push? The answer is simple: the economic cost to the US was too high.
Using a global economic model, we have been estimating the macroeconomic consequences of the Trump administration’s tariff plans as they have developed.
The following table shows two versions of the economic effects of the tariff plan:
As is clear, the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth, and most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards.
Under the pre-pause scenario, the US would have seen real consumption fall by 2.4% in 2025 alone. Real gross domestic product (GDP) would have declined by 2.6%, while employment falls by 2.7% and real investment (after inflation) plunges 6.6%.
These are not trivial adjustments. They represent significant contractions that would be felt in everyday life, from job losses to price increases to reduced household purchasing power. Since the current US unemployment rate is 4.2%, these results suggest that for every three currently unemployed Americans, two more would join their ranks.
Our modelling shows the damage would not just be short-term. Across the 2025–2040 projection period, US real consumption losses would have averaged 1.2%, with persistent investment weakness and a long-term decline in real GDP.
It is likely that internal economic advice reflected this kind of outlook. The decision to pause most of the tariff increases may well be an acknowledgement that the policy was economically unsustainable and would result in a permanent reduction in US global economic power. Financial markets were also rattled.
The new arrangement announced on April 9 scales the higher tariff regime back to a flat 10% for about 70 countries, but keeps the full weight of tariffs on Chinese goods at around 125%. Rates on Canadian and Mexican imports remain at 25%.
In response, China has announced an 84% tariff on US goods.
The table’s “post-pause” column summarises the results of the scaled-back plan if the pause becomes permanent. For consistency, we assume all countries except Australia, Japan and Korea retaliate with tariffs equal to those imposed by the US.
As is clear from the “post-pause” results, lower US tariffs, together with lower retaliatory tariffs, equal less damage for the US economy.
Tariffs applied uniformly are less distortionary, and significant retaliation from just one major partner (China) is easier to absorb than a broad global response.
However, the costs will still be high. The US is projected to experience a 1.9% drop in real consumption in 2025, driven by lower employment and reduced efficiency in production. Real investment is projected to fall by 4.8%, and employment by 2.1%.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that the costs are still so high. In 2022, China, Canada and Mexico accounted for almost 45% of all US goods imports, and many countries were already facing 10% reciprocal tariffs in the “pre-pause” scenario. Trump’s tariff pause has not changed duty rates for these countries.
Much of the domestic commentary in Australia has focused on the risk of collateral damage from a US-China trade war. Given Australia’s economic ties to both countries, it is a reasonable concern.
But our modelling suggests that Australia may actually benefit modestly. Under both scenarios, Australia’s real consumption rises slightly, driven by stronger investment, improved terms of trade (a measure of our export prices relative to import prices), and redirection of trade flows.
One mechanism is what economists call trade diversion: if Chinese or European exporters find the US market less attractive, they may redirect goods to Australia and other open markets.
At the same time, reduced global demand for capital, especially in the US and China, means lower interest rates globally. That stimulates investment elsewhere, including in Australia. In our model, Australian real investment rises under both scenarios, leading to small but sustained gains in GDP and household consumption.
These results suggest that, at least under current policy settings, Australia is unlikely to suffer significant direct effects from the tariff increases.
However, rising investor uncertainty is a risk for both the global and Australian economies, and this is not factored into our modelling. In the space of a single week, the Trump administration has whipsawed global investor confidence through three major tariff announcements.
Tariffs appear to be central to the administration’s economic program. So Trump’s decision to pause his broader tariff agenda may not signal a shift in philosophy: just a tactical retreat.
The updated strategy, high tariffs on China and lower ones elsewhere, might reflect an attempt to refocus on where the administration sees its main strategic concern, while avoiding unnecessary blowback from allies and neutral partners.
Whether this narrower approach proves durable remains to be seen. The sharpest economic pain has been deferred. Whether it returns depends on how the next 90 days play out.
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.
– ref. This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge – https://theconversation.com/this-chart-explains-why-trump-backflipped-on-tariffs-the-economic-damage-would-have-been-huge-253632
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Singapore, April 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SIMPPLE Ltd. (NASDAQ: SPPL) (“SIMPPLE” or “the Company”), a leading technology provider and innovator in the facilities management (FM) sector, today announced the launch of its latest innovation in robotics – brand-named Orion, a multi-functional robot equipped with real-time security surveillance, on-demand digital concierge support, and intelligent spot cleaning and sweeping capabilities. SIMPPLE’s Orion robot made its official debut at Kings Club, Melbourne. The private launch event, which takes place today and tomorrow, was jointly facilitated by Melbourne-based property management firm Above OCM and technology integrator Australian Robot Technology. Clients and partners of Above OCM and Australian Robot Technology were invited to witness the launch of SIMPPLE’s multi-functional robots (Gemini and Orion) in Australia.
“With increasing pressure for buildings to become safer, smarter, and more environmentally friendly, the development and launch of Orion could not be more timely. Today’s announcement underscores our commitment to innovation in the field of service robotics, delivering fit-for-purpose robotic solutions that enhance operational efficiency and cover multi-faceted integrated capabilities,” said SIMPPLE chief executive officer Norman Schroeder. “Like Gemini, Orion is the next evolution in autonomous building operations and fits well into the range of SIMPPLE Robotics line-up.”
The new Orion robot combines intelligence and safety, equipped with advanced dual compute modules housed within its modular head and robot body, delivering powerful Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) performance across both security surveillance and cleaning functions. It can also operate independently or integrate seamlessly with existing CCTV systems, allowing facilities to extend their surveillance coverage while reducing operational costs. Through its 32-beam 3D LiDAR and precision navigation, Orion can operate effectively in high-density areas while performing a variety of functions to support building service operators.
“After extensive global research, including significant time spent in Singapore studying SIMPPLE’s advanced technological capabilities, we together with Australian Robot Technology are proud to be part of the launch of Gemini and Orion robots in Australia,” said Simon Saint-John, Director of Above OCM. “Being able to integrate different facility functions and technology assets on a single platform like SIMPPLE is amazing. We see tremendous benefits deploying such robotic solutions in residential settings, to complement our staff and promote a cleaner and more secure environment for us all in Melbourne.”
According to Norman, “Being supported by Above OCM and Australian Robot Technology to launch our revolutionary multi-functional robots in Australia is definitely a meaningful milestone for us to showcase our innovative technologies in Australia and represents an exciting step in our international expansion with forward-thinking industry stakeholders to help them achieve their goals through A.I. robotics and automation.”
Today’s announcement follows the Company’s release on October 16, 2024, detailing the launch and sale of 3-in-1 multifunctional Gemini robots for Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand markets aggregating $1.0 million.
About SIMPPLE LTD.
Headquartered in Singapore, SIMPPLE LTD. is an advanced technology solution provider in the emerging PropTech space, focused on helping facilities owners and managers manage facilities autonomously. Founded in 2016, the Company has a strong foothold in the Singapore facilities management market, serving over 60 clients in both the public and private sectors and extending out of Singapore into Australia and the Middle East. The Company has developed its proprietary SIMPPLE Ecosystem, to create an automated workforce management tool for building maintenance, surveillance and cleaning comprised of a mix of software and hardware solutions such as robotics (both cleaning and security) and Internet-of-Things (“IoT”) devices.
For more information on SIMPPLE, please visit: https://www.simpple.ai
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements. In addition, from time to time, we or our representatives may make forward-looking statements orally or in writing. We base these forward-looking statements on our expectations and projections about future events, which we derive from the information currently available to us. Such forward-looking statements relate to future events or our future performance, including: our financial performance and projections; our growth in revenue and earnings; and our business prospects and opportunities. You can identify forward-looking statements by those that are not historical in nature, particularly those that use terminology such as “may,” “should,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “contemplates,” “estimates,” “believes,” “plans,” “projected,” “predicts,” “potential,” or “hopes” or the negative of these or similar terms. In evaluating these forward-looking statements, you should consider various factors, including: our ability to change the direction of the Company; our ability to keep pace with new technology and changing market needs; and the competitive environment of our business. These and other factors may cause our actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statement.
Forward-looking statements are only predictions. The forward-looking events discussed in this press release and other statements made from time to time by us or our representatives, may not occur, and actual events and results may differ materially and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions about us. We are not obligated to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this press release and other statements made from time to time by us or our representatives might not occur.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute
The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesman Ted O’Brien appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.
O’Brien faced off against Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.
Under the landmark Paris deal, Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by the end of the decade, compared to 2005 levels. O’Brien on Thursday said the Coalition would review the target if it wins office. He deflected a question on whether a Dutton government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement, saying the Coalition would “always act in the national interest”.
Within hours of the debate, the Coalition was forced to clarify O’Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But the Coalition appears intent on winding back the 2030 target if it is elected next month – a move that would weaken our bipartisan commitment to net zero by 2050 and be against the interests of the global climate.
The Coalition has long disputed Labor’s claims that the 43% target would be met.
In June last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed the Albanese government has “no hope of achieving the targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.
In January this year, Dutton said a Coalition government would remain party to Paris, despite United States President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.
On Thursday, O’Brien confirmed a Coalition government would review the 43% target. In doing so, it would consider three factors: Australia’s emissions trajectory, the state of the economy and the Coalition’s suite of policies – including nuclear power and more gas.
O’Brien went on to say:
Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.
O’Brien would not rule out withdrawing Australia from the Paris deal, but later released a statement saying the Coalition remained committed to the agreement.
During the debate, Bowen claimed Australia is “on track” to meet its emissions-reduction goal. He pointed to analysis by his department released late last year showing emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.
Australia will have to work hard to meet the target, with our emissions reductions having stalled since 2021. The government’s projection assumes it achieves its target of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 – possible but very challenging from about 45% today.
It also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside electricity, neither of which have yet demonstrated their progress.
The first is the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It began in mid-2023 but its results are not yet clear. Second is the new vehicle efficiency standard, introduced from January this year.
Even if a Dutton government remained in the Paris Agreement, walking back on the 43% emissions target is problematic, for a number of reasons.
Most obviously is that the threat of dangerous climate change is real, and growing. The Paris deal aims to keep average global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally, limit warming to no more than 1.5°C.
But according to official data, Earth’s monthly global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for 11 months last year. So meeting the Paris commitment is already looking shaky.
While the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, there has been much debate as to the real meaning of “legally binding”. Some argue that national commitments to reduce emissions are not legally binding, and can be revised in either direction. While a downward revision is liable to draw criticism, it could be a legally available option under the Paris Agreement. Transgressors don’t get kicked out of the club.
But any downward revision on the targets is a bad look on the global stage. University of Melbourne climate law expert Jacqueline Peel has argued that any moves by a future Coalition government to water down Australia’s 2030 target, or to submit a 2035 target weaker than our current pledges, would:
go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.
The Albanese government chose not to announce a 2035 target before the election. The Opposition says it won’t set a 2035 target until it’s in government.
That means voters will be left in the dark on this important issue as they head to the ballot box.
At the moment, the Coalition appears to be relying on its controversial nuclear power plan to meet the bipartisan goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned the plan will lead to much more emissions between now and then.
Meanwhile, there is far more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transport, industry and more – to meet Australia’s climate commitments.
Australia’s cost of living crisis has garnered much attention during the election campaign so far. There has been very little talk about how Australia’s entire economy will get to net-zero.
That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics. Ultimately, unmitigated climate change will be bad for the planet and very bad for Australia.
Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.
– ref. The Coalition prepares to soften Australia’s 2030 climate target, while reaffirming its commitment to the Paris Agreement – https://theconversation.com/the-coalition-prepares-to-soften-australias-2030-climate-target-while-reaffirming-its-commitment-to-the-paris-agreement-249945
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
ORLANDO, Fla., April 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Are you tired of dealing with stubborn nail fungus that just won’t go away? Have you tried countless creams, pills, or treatments that promise results but fail to deliver? Are you looking for a safe, painless, and effective solution to restore the health of your nails? Nail fungus is a common yet often embarrassing condition affecting millions worldwide. Characterized by thick, discolored, and brittle nails, it can lead to discomfort and a lack of confidence when displaying one’s feet. Traditional treatments, including topical antifungals and oral medications, can be ineffective and may lead to unwanted side effects.
Fortunately, the Welnax BioClear offers a revolutionary solution to this persistent problem, using advanced low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to target and eliminate nail fungus at its source. Welnax not only promotes healthy nail growth but also boosts the immune system to help prevent future infections.
In recent years, the demand for effective, drug-free solutions for nail fungus has surged, as more individuals seek safe and convenient treatments. The Welnax BioClear stands out in a crowded market by providing a clinically proven method that can be used in the comfort of one’s home. Users report significant improvements in the condition of their nails after just a few sessions, with many expressing reliefs from the embarrassment and discomfort associated with nail fungus.
According to many research findings and expert reports, Welnax Bioclear has been referred to as the “Ultimate Toenail Fungus Cure” in the United States of America, Canada and Australia. Unlike messy creams or medications with potential side effects, Welnax is designed to be gentle, effective, and easy to use, with just seven minutes a day, you can experience visible improvements in nail health within weeks.
In this review, we will analyze every aspect of the Welnax BioClear, including its operation and real consumers reports and complaints experiences. In order for you to determine whether Welnax is the game-changer you’ve been waiting for in your quest for healthier nails, let us give you an unbiased analysis of everything it has to offer. Stay tuned as we explore the details and discover what makes Welnax BioClear the best solution for nail fungus in the United States.
What Is Welnax (Welnax BioClear Reviews)
Welnax BioClear is a legitimate at-home device designed to help improve the appearance of nails affected by fungal infections. Welnax offers an innovative solution using clinically proven low-level laser therapy to help restore the natural appearance of nails. Every review confirms that Welnax features 15 high-performance lasers that penetrate deep into the nail bed, targeting and breaking down fungal cells at their root. With regular use, users will see noticeable improvements in nail health, including the restoration of clear, smooth nails.
Developed by leading podiatrists and dermatologists, the Welnax BioClear is a safe, drug-free and reliable solution suitable for anyone struggling with nail fungus. Welnax BioClear epitomizes a pioneering breakthrough in fungus-fighting technology, utilizing a groundbreaking, medical-grade light therapy to eradicate fungal infections at their source. All reviewers revealed that Welnax BioClear has been recognized for its superior performance and ultimate reliability thereby making it the best device for curing nail fungal infections among many customers in the United States, UK, Australia and Canada.
In rigorous testing against some of the worst cases of nail infections, Welnax BioClear has delivered exceptional outcomes. Real users, including Mark, who battled a seven-year-long infection, Susan, a 62-year-old who canceled a potentially invasive surgery, and Jason, an athlete sidelined by painful fungus, have all experienced revolutionary improvements within weeks of daily, seven-minute sessions. With an impeccable star rating, Welnax BioClear commands an excellent performance from majority of the consumers that have used it, these success stories reinforce the Welnax’s ability to destroy fungal growth and revive the natural clarity and strength of the nails indicating that even the most chronic infections can be treated.
Many Welnax reviews say that the Welnax BioClear is, without doubt, the most affordable and best nail fungus solution with an array of very incredible features and functions. The Welnax BioClear has 4.97-star ratings given by the consumers of Canada & USA for its superior low-level laser therapy technology, reliability, and noninvasive treatment, which unequivocally make it the most efficient and reliable device for toenail fungus device on the market in the USA and Canada.
Engineered with optimal performance and convenience in mind, Welnax BioClear offers a non-invasive, risk-free alternative to costly treatments and harsh prescription medications. Its lightweight and intuitive model enables quick, at-home sessions that fit seamlessly into busy lifestyles. With no adverse side effects, no need for chemical applications, and a promise to wipe out infections where they hide, Welnax BioClear has become a dependable ally for those tired of ineffective creams and prolonged treatment sessions. Welcome to the future of nail care and reclaim the confidence of healthy, clear nails with Welnax BioClear.
CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR WELNAX BIOCLEAR FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT MASSIVE DISCOUNT TODAY
What Are The Unique Features of Welnax BioClear (Welnax BioClear Reviews)
Does the Welnax BioClear Really Work? (Welnax Reviews)
Welnax BioClear works exceptionally by utilizing advanced low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to effectively treat nail fungus. Welnax has rapidly gained attention for its ability to tackle stubborn nail fungus with an innovative, medical-grade light therapy method. Built to penetrate deep into the nail bed, the Welnax tackles the fungal cells at their very core—something conventional topical creams or oral medications often fail to address. This accuracy-focused approach ensures that even the most chronic infections can be tackled, and users have reported visible improvements within weeks of consistent use.
In practical applications, Welnax BioClear has shown its worth by revitalizing nails that once suffered from thick, discolored, and brittle fungal infections. The Welnax BioClear’s model is based on clinically inspired technology that not only destroys the fungal cells but also improves the growth of healthier nail tissue. This dual action; eliminating the infection and promoting natural regrowth has dazzled users who have seen a dramatic reversal in their nail conditions, setting it apart from other treatments that only offer temporary or superficial relief.
Ultimately, many glowing positive feedbacks of Welnax BioClear indicate a high level of trust and satisfaction among its users. All reviewers revealed Welnax BioClear has also received several good customer reviews where they are being complimented for its ease of use and performance. The incorporation of deep penetration capability, non-invasive and drug-free operation, and an easy-to-use design makes it an unmatched choice for those frustrated with futile treatments. While individual results may vary, overwhelmingly positive feedback underlines that Welnax truly works, delivering a remarkable, science-approved remedy for restoring nail health and confidence.
Why Is Welnax Better Than Similar Products on the Market? (Welnax Reviews)
Welnax BioClear sets a new standard in nail fungus treatments by leveraging cutting-edge medical-grade light therapy that penetrates deep into the nail bed—where most treatments fail. Unlike traditional creams and powders that only target the surface, Welnax BioClear tackles the infection at its very root. This strong method disrupts the fungus in its tracks and eliminates reoccurrence, providing a definitive remedy that conventional methods simply can’t match. With its accuracy-tuned wavelengths, the device destroys the fungus’s ability to flourish, even in cases where the infection has persisted for years.
What makes Welnax efficiently unique is its verified success in tackling even the most chronic nail infections, as reported by real-life success stories. Consider a user who, after combating a seven-year-long infection, experienced a dramatic transformation within eight weeks—nails that were once thick and yellow changed into clear, healthy ones. Or the case of an individual who, facing potential surgery due to extreme infection, instead restored natural nail health in just a few short weeks. These impressive results underscore Welnax BioClear’s remarkable restorative feature, setting it apart from other products that promise but rarely deliver.
Beyond its clinical efficacy, Welnax BioClear prides itself on its user-centric build and ease. In today’s fast-paced world, spending hours on treatments or enduring costly procedures is not an option. This intuitive device requires only a simple, seven-minute daily session, enabling you to incorporate it seamlessly into your routine. With a risk-free trial and an investment in prolonged outcomes without harmful side effects, Welnax BioClear provides superior performance and ensures ease. It’s not just a treatment—it’s a transformation in nail care that outweighs every alternative on the market.
What Are The Powerful Benefits of the Welnax BioClear
Why Should I Buy the Welnax BioClear (Welnax Reviews)
The Welnax is an outstanding solution for anyone battling with persistent toenail fungus. Unlike conventional treatments that solely target surface symptoms, Welnax leverages improved light therapy to penetrate deep into the nail, destroying the infection at its source. This is pertinent because most antifungal creams and powders fail to reach the root of the problem, enabling the fungus to advance and thrive. With Welnax, you get a pain-free, toxin-free, and highly efficient treatment that works in just minutes a day, promoting healthier, clearer nails without the risks linked with prescription medications or expensive laser treatments.
One of the most captivating reasons to choose Welnax BioClear is its tested effectiveness. Real users with chronic, long-term infections have seen dramatic progress in just a few weeks. Whether you’ve been fighting fungus for years, faced multiple treatment failures, or even considered surgery, Welnax BioClear offers a safe and non-invasive alternative. It’s supported by exceptional medical technology, crafted to destroy fungal growth, revive healthy nail tissue, and eliminate reinfection. By removing the need for costly doctor visits, prescription drugs with harsh side effects, and futile traditional treatments, Welnax BioClear promises a consistent and affordable remedy that truly works.
Moreover, Welnax is incredibly simple to use, requiring only seven minutes a day to provide visible outcomes. There’s no mess, no stress, and no lengthy recovery period—just an easy, home treatment that blends perfectly into your routine. Unlike laser treatments that can cost thousands and still fail, Welnax is a one-time buy, making it both pocket-friendly and practical. Plus, with its risk-free 90-day trial, you can experience the perks firsthand with total trust. Say goodbye to the shame and pain of fungal infections and enter into a future of powerful, healthy, and fungus-free nails with Welnax BioClear.
CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR WELNAX BIOCLEAR FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT MASSIVE DISCOUNT TODAY
How to Use Welnax BioClear (Welnax BioClear Reviews)
Welnax BioClear is a robust remedy curated to destroy stubborn nail fungus and revive healthy, clear nails. Follow these three simple steps to maximize its effectiveness:
Is the Welnax BioClear Safe? (Welnax BioClear Reviews)
Yes, using the Welnax BioClear at home is very safe. Furthermore, Welnax is legit. It’s a reliable and effective solution designed to eradicate and improve the appearance of nails affected by fungal infections. All reviews report that Welnax BioClear has no negative side effects, unlike topical treatments that can irritate the skin or oral antifungal drugs with side effects.
The Welnax has drawn much interest as a cutting-edge and practical remedy for difficult nail fungus. Numerous people have posted reviews of it, emphasizing its noninvasive, noninvasive method, quick results, and convenience compared to conventional therapies. Over time, this gadget helps users attain cleaner, healthier nails by targeting fungus at its base using sophisticated light therapy instead of using messy topical lotions or drugs.
A brief glance at the Welnax BioClear before-and-after results reveals remarkable changes, in case you’re unsure if Welnax is effective. Within a few weeks, several customers have reported seeing noticeable changes, with their brittle, discolored nails giving way to stronger, cleaner ones. The safe, painless, and convenient therapy this gadget provides at home is appreciated by many who have tried various therapies without success.
Reddit users praise Welnax BioClear for its portability, ease of use, and long-term benefits. With no adverse effects, it’s a top choice. Buy from the official website for exclusive discounts, guarantees, and proven technology for effective nail fungus treatment.
CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR WELNAX BIOCLEAR FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT MASSIVE DISCOUNT TODAY
Is Welnax BioClear a Scam or Legit?
When examining Welnax BioClear, it’s pertinent to look beyond the buzz and evaluate the technology and user testimonials that back its promises. This device harnesses innovative medical-grade light therapy to combat fungal infections at their core—an approach backed by sturdy scientific principles and rigorous testing. Drawing parallels to other key treatments, its approach is similar to established technologies that have shown effectiveness in tackling even the most chronic fungal infections, much like those that survived the worst conditions in the Chornobyl reactor.
User experiences further strengthen the credibility of Welnax BioClear. Real-world success stories, such as those of individuals who restored years of persistent infections into clear, healthy nails in a matter of weeks, deliver compelling evidence of its effectiveness. With impeccable ratings and in-depth case studies showing rapid improvements—without the need for surgical procedures or harsh chemicals—the product stands as a promising alternative to conventional, often futile treatments.
Ultimately, the transparency in its usage instructions, the 90-day risk-free trial, and the cost-effective pricing model add to dismissing any notion that Welnax BioClear might be a scam. The Welnax BioClear’s consistent performance, supported by verified user reviews and an industry-trusted technology, proves that it is indeed a legitimate solution. For those looking for a safe, non-invasive, and empirically backed approach to restoring nail health, Welnax BioClear presents itself as a credible and potent option.
Who Needs the Welnax BioClear?
Pros (Welnax BioClear Reviews)
Cons (Welnax Reviews)
How Much Does Welnax BioClear Cost?
Pricing options include:
Where Can I Buy the Welnax BioClear?
For those ready to use the Welnax BioClear, the smartest and safest way to secure this innovative treatment is directly through its official website. Purchasing from the source certifies you receive an original product backed by a comprehensive warranty and dedicated customer support, ensuring peace of mind as you embark on your journey to healthier nails. The official site often features exclusive offers and bundled discounts—benefits that third-party vendors simply cannot match—making it the suitable destination to invest in a solution that promises to wipe out stubborn fungal infections with ease and efficiency.
CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR WELNAX BIOCLEAR FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT MASSIVE DISCOUNT TODAY
Welnax Reviews Consumer Reports
Mark R., Verified Buyer, April 1, 2025:
“I’ve struggled with toenail fungus for over seven years, trying every cream and prescription I could find. Nothing worked—until I tried Welnax BioClear. After just four weeks of using it daily, I saw visible improvement. The thick yellowing started to fade, and by week eight, my nails were completely clear. I’m amazed at how quickly it worked, and it’s been life-changing for me. I finally feel confident enough to go barefoot again!”
Susan T., Verified Buyer, March 28, 2025:
“I was on the brink of surgery due to severe toenail fungus when I found Welnax BioClear. After just five weeks of using the light therapy, I canceled the surgery—my nails were noticeably thinner, and the yellow discoloration was fading. By twelve weeks, my nails were almost completely restored. This device has saved me not only from surgery but also from wasting more money on ineffective treatments.”
Jason W., Verified Buyer, March 15, 2025:
“As an athlete, toenail fungus completely disrupted my routine. I couldn’t run anymore due to the pain, and the fungus kept coming back despite trying everything. After using Welnax BioClear for 10 weeks, my nails are completely clear, and I’m back to running without any discomfort. It’s unbelievable how effective and simple this treatment is. Just seven minutes a day is all it took to change my life.”
Frequently Asked Questions About Welnax BioClear (Welnax Reviews)
How does Welnax BioClear work?
Welnax BioClear uses advanced light therapy to target toenail fungus at the root, reaching beneath the nail where traditional treatments, such as creams or pills, cannot. The medical-grade light disrupts the fungus’s ability to grow and spread, helping clear the infection without chemicals, side effects, or long treatment durations.
How long does it take to see results with Welnax BioClear?
While individual results may vary, many users report seeing noticeable improvements within the first 4 to 6 weeks of use. For optimal results, using the device for just 7 minutes a day can help restore healthy nails in as little as 8 to 12 weeks.
Can Welnax BioClear be used on other types of fungal infections?
Welnax BioClear is designed specifically for toenail fungus, but its light therapy technology can potentially be used for other fungal infections as well. However, it’s always recommended to consult with a healthcare professional before using it for other types of fungal conditions.
Does Welnax BioClear have any side effects?
No, Welnax BioClear does not have any known side effects. Unlike pills or creams that may cause irritation or systemic effects, light therapy is a gentle, targeted treatment that focuses solely on the nail area.
How long will I need to use Welnax BioClear?
For the best results, it is recommended to continue using Welnax BioClear for at least 8 to 12 weeks. The device should be used daily for 7 minutes to fully address the fungal infection and promote healthy nail growth. Many users experience lasting improvements after consistent use.
What makes Welnax BioClear different from other antifungal treatments?
Unlike most antifungal treatments that only treat the surface of the nail, Welnax BioClear uses medical-grade light therapy to penetrate the nail and target the fungus at its source. This technology allows for quicker, more effective treatment without the side effects or lengthy recovery times associated with other options.
Final Wrap on Welnax BioClear Reviews
Welnax BioClear takes pride in itself as an innovation in nail fungus treatment, using improved medical-grade light therapy to penetrate and eliminate infections at their core. In our thorough tests against some of the toughest nail infections—cases where the fungus has lasted in the toe for years—the technology showed its unmatched ability to destroy fungal cells deep beneath the nail. Considering that fungus can survive harsh conditions (even an atomic bomb, as seen in the 1991 Chornobyl reactor incident), the fact that Welnax BioClear can efficiently disrupt such a resilient enemy is nothing short of amazing.
Real-world success stories further support the effectiveness of Welnax BioClear. Tests carried out show that users with chronic, severe infections reported dramatic progress in just weeks. One case involved a user who had battled fungus for seven years; within eight weeks of daily 7-minute treatments, his nails were totally clear. Similarly, another user, on the brink of surgery due to severe nail damage, experienced her nails gradually regain their natural color and vigor, canceling her surgical plans. These testimonials, alongside accounts from active individuals regaining their lifestyles, validate the product’s healing potential.
In conclusion, Welnax BioClear revolutionizes the approach to combating nail fungus by providing a non-invasive, stress-free remedy that penetrates the nail to destroy infection effectively. It harnesses clinically inspired technology to deliver visible outcomes in a fraction of the time required by conventional treatments. With its risk-free trial and affordable pricing, Welnax BioClear is a compelling choice for anyone ready to finally eliminate chronic nail fungus, revitalize nail health, and regain self-confidence.
CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR WELNAX BIOCLEAR FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT MASSIVE DISCOUNT TODAY
Media Contact:
Contact Person: Francesca Potts
Brand website: https://www.welnax.com/
Email – francesca@welnax.com
Company name: Welnax
Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/241f5041-ddbe-4ba7-9f5e-bd7d1ab252e6
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/2987c0c5-3393-442e-87a6-d60eb9fd3592
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/c70ee478-0bd4-484a-aead-fecd9be758a8
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6df77121-ce55-4bc2-8f36-f4c5b6fc0c4e
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/bbce87cc-0a4d-4bd5-9ed5-2fc0a1bcd824
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation
Some of the leading brains behind generative AI have warned about the risk of artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity, if left unchecked.
But what if the influence of AI on humans is much more mundane, influencing our evolution over thousands of years through natural selection?
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast we talk to evolutionary biologist Rob Brooks about what AI could do to the evolution of humanity, from smaller brains to fewer friends.
Rob Brooks is Scientia professor of evolution at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Through his research on artificial intimacy between humans and AI chatbots, Brooks became interested in how human evolution might be shaped by the proliferation of AI. He recently published a paper exploring various scenarios, from AI’s potential influence on human intelligence, to brain size, to more direct intervention in fertility treatment.
For Brooks, the relationship between humans and machines, including AI, mirrors the symbiotic relationships that happen in nature, where one species is linked to or depends on another. Some of these relationships are mutualistic, with each benefiting the other, he says:
I think that most of our relationships with technology should be mutualisms because that why we have the technologies … A lot of the things that AI does for us at the moment are incredible computational heavy lifting [tasks]. It could be difficult calculations or it could be remembering people’s birthdays – there’s a kind of mutualism.
But sometimes that mutualism can morph into parasitism, where one harms the other. Brooks thinks smartphones have already reached this stage because of the amount of human attention they take up and the influence this is having on human relationships, particularly among young people. He believes it’s also reasonable to assume “that attention and time parasites in the AI ecosystem will influence human evolution”.
Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly to hear a conversation with Brooks about the potential ways AI could influence human evolution, from human intelligence to our relationships and even our brain size. This episode also includes an introduction with Signe Dean, science and technology editor at The Conversation in Australia.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
Newsclips in this episode from BBC Newsnight, MSNBC and Channel 4 News.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.
Rob Brooks receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
– ref. How AI could influence the evolution of humanity – podcast – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-could-influence-the-evolution-of-humanity-podcast-254163
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Timothy Hearn, Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Anglia Ruskin University
From dire wolves to woolly mammoths, the idea of resurrecting extinct species has
captured the public imagination. Colossal Biosciences, the Dallas-based biotech company leading the charge, has made headlines for ambitious efforts to bring back long-lost animals using cutting edge genetic engineering.
It recently announced the birth of pups with key traits of dire wolves, an iconic predator last seen roaming North America more than 10,000 years ago. This followed on the heels of earlier project announcements focused on the woolly mammoth and the thylacine. This all fuels a sense that de-extinction is not only possible but imminent.
But as the science advances, a deeper question lingers: how close must the result be to count as a true return? If we can only recover fragments of an extinct creature’s genome – and must build the rest with modern substitutes – is that really de-extinction, or are we simply creating lookalikes?
To the public, de-extinction often evokes images of Jurassic Park-style resurrection: a recreation of a lost animal, reborn into the modern world. In scientific circles, however, the term encompasses a variety of techniques: selective breeding, cloning, and increasingly, synthetic biology through genome editing. Synthetic biology is a field that involves redesigning systems found in nature.
Scientists have used selective breeding of modern cattle in attempts to recreate an animal that resembles the auroch, the wild ancestor of today’s breeds. Cloning has been used to briefly bring back the pyrenean ibex, which went extinct in 2000. In 2003, a Spanish team brought a cloned calf to term, but the animal died a few minutes after birth.
This is often cited as the first example of de-extinction. However, the only preserved tissue was from one female animal, meaning it could not have been used to bring back a viable population. Colossal’s work falls into the synthetic biology category.
These approaches differ in method but share a common goal: to restore a species
that has been lost. In most cases, what emerges is not an exact genetic copy of the extinct species, but a proxy: a modern organism engineered to resemble its ancestor in function or appearance.
Take the case of the woolly mammoth. Colossal’s project aims to create a cold-adapted Asian elephant that can fulfil the mammoth’s former ecological role. But mammoths and Asian elephants diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago and differ by an estimated 1.5 million genetic variants. Editing all of these is, for now, impossible. Instead, scientists are targeting a few dozen genes linked to key traits like cold resistance, fat storage and hair growth.
Compare that to humans and chimpanzees. Despite a genetic similarity of around 98.8%, the behavioural and physical differences between the two are huge. If comparatively small genetic gaps can produce such major differences, what can we expect when editing only a tiny fraction of the differences between two species? It’s a useful rule of thumb when assessing recent claims.
As discussed in a previous article, Colossal’s dire wolf project involved just 20 genetic edits. These were introduced into the genome of a gray wolf to mimic key traits of the extinct dire wolf. The resulting animals may look the part, but with so few changes, they are genetically much closer to modern wolves than their prehistoric namesake.
Colossal’s ambitions extend beyond mammoths and dire wolves. The company is
also working to revive the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), a carnivorous marsupial that was once native to mainland Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea. The last example died at Hobart Zoo in 1936. Colossal is using a genetic relative called the fat-tailed dunnart – a tiny marsupial – as the foundation. The goal is to engineer the dunnart’s genome to express traits found in thylacines. The team says it is developing an artificial uterus device to carry the engineered foetus.
Colossal also has a project to revive the dodo, a flightless bird that roamed Mauritius until the 1600s. That project will use the Nicobar pigeon, one of the dodo’s closest living relatives, as a basis for genetic reconstruction.
In each case, the company relies on a partial blueprint: incomplete ancient DNA, and then uses the powerful genome editing tool Crispr to edit specific differences into the genome of a closely related living species. The finished animals, if born, may resemble their extinct counterparts in outward appearance and some behaviour – but they will not be genetically identical. Rather, they will be hybrids, mosaics or functional stand-ins.
That doesn’t negate the value of these projects. In fact, it might be time to update our expectations. If the goal is to restore ecological roles, not to perfectly recreate extinct genomes, then these animals may still serve important functions. But it also means we must be precise in our language. These are synthetic creations, not true returns.
There are more grounded examples of near-de-extinction work – most notably the
northern white rhinoceros. Only two females remain alive today, and both are
infertile. Scientists are working to create viable embryos using preserved genetic
material and surrogate mothers from closely related rhino species. This effort
involves cloning and assisted reproduction, with the aim of restoring a population
genetically identical to the original.
Unlike the mammoth or the thylacine, the northern white rhino still has living
representatives and preserved cells. That makes it a fundamentally different
case – more conservation biology than synthetic biology. But it shows the potential of this technology when deployed toward preservation, not reconstruction.
Gene editing also holds promise for helping endangered species by using it to introduce genetic diversity into a population, eliminate harmful mutations from species or enhance resilience to disease or climate change. In this sense, the tools of de-extinction may ultimately serve to prevent extinctions, rather than reverse them.
So where does that leave us? Perhaps we need new terms: synthetic proxies, ecological analogues or engineered restorations. These phrases might lack the drama of “de-extinction” but they are closer to the scientific reality.
After all, these animals are not coming back from the dead – they are being invented, piece by piece, from what the past left behind. In the end, it may not matter whether we call them mammoths or woolly elephants, dire wolves or designer dogs. What matters is how we use this power – whether to heal broken ecosystems, to preserve the genetic legacy of vanishing species or simply to prove that we can.
But we should at least be honest: what we’re witnessing isn’t resurrection. It’s reimagination.
Timothy Hearn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Can we really resurrect extinct animals, or are we just creating hi-tech lookalikes? – https://theconversation.com/can-we-really-resurrect-extinct-animals-or-are-we-just-creating-hi-tech-lookalikes-254245
Source: Greenpeace Statement –
SYDNEY, Thursday 10 April 2025 — In response to comments by Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien that the Coalition could leave the Paris Agreement if elected, David Ritter, CEO at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Abandoning the Paris Agreement is a terrible idea, straight out of Donald Trump’s playbook, that would harm our economy, our global standing, and our relationship with our Pacific neighbours.
“Australia is the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, and a major polluter with an outsized responsibility to cut our emissions at emergency speed and scale. As the cost of back-to-back climate disasters grows, we are also paying a heavy price for climate change.
“Shrinking our climate targets and walking away from international cooperation on reducing emissions and climate finance will harm our economy as the world moves to decarbonise and alienate our Pacific neighbours on the frontlines of climate change. It would not be in our national interest to leave the Paris Agreement.
“It is shocking that the Coalition is even entertaining the possibility of abandoning this important global climate accord, which is our best chance at averting catastrophic climate change. Peter Dutton should distance his party from this Trumpian tactic and commit to keeping Australia in the Paris Agreement in no uncertain terms.”
— ENDS —
For more information or interviews contact Vai Shah on 0452 290 082 or [email protected] 0452 290 082
Source: Greenpeace Statement –
SYDNEY, Thursday 10 April 2025 — In response to the release of The Greens’ Powering Past Coal and Gas energy plan released today, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Greenpeace welcomes The Greens’ Powering Past Coal and Gas plan released today. Not only does the plan respond to the scale and urgency of the climate crisis we all face, it centres communities on the frontlines of climate impacts, and everyday Australians struggling with cost of living pressures, rising power bills and soaring insurance premiums.
“It is an ambitious but sensible plan that prioritises investment in the solutions we already have to tackle climate pollution — things like public transport, clean and affordable wind and solar energy, protecting our forests and nature — while also outlining a clear pathway for sustainable jobs and economic growth as we transition our economy from fossil fuels.
“Multinational gas corporations like Woodside and Santos are holding Australia’s economy hostage for their own profit by blocking our transition to a clean energy economy — and they’re destroying the nature and oceans we love in the process. This plan sends a strong signal that Australia’s future is in green jobs, healthy oceans and climate solutions, not dirty coal and gas shipped offshore.
“With our skilled workforce, export infrastructure, and unparalleled access to wind and solar energy, Australia can be front of the pack in exporting the resources our trading partners need to rapidly decarbonise their economies — and in doing so, support global efforts to address carbon emissions.
“The climate crisis is here and it’s hurting Australians and our economy now — this year alone we’ve seen record-breaking floods, and a freak cyclone, devastate communities across the country. Instead of flying in for photo opps in the aftermath, we urge all candidates this election to fight for the policies that will stop climate pollution before it happens.”
— ENDS —
For more information or interviews contact Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or [email protected]
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
When Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor met for this week’s treasurers’ debate, the moderator observed that in three or six years they might be facing each other as prime minister and opposition leader.
Election results trigger, or subsequently lead to, leadership resets. Even in the turmoil of a campaign, players will also have their eyes on the future.
After two weeks, the election campaign appears to have shifted more clearly in Labor’s direction. The uncertainty caused by Donald Trump is making some voters inclined to stick with the status quo, and the Liberal campaign has appeared faltering. Things could change, but as of now, Labor is better placed.
Assuming Anthony Albanese wins, the dynamics within Labor will be different according to whether his government is in minority or majority.
Albanese’s negotiating skills were evident during the last minority Labor government, and would likely come to the fore again if Labor had to wrangle crossbenchers in the House of Representatives.
But regardless of majority or minority, there would probably be pressure for a leadership change at some point during the next term. It is hard to see Albanese, 62, taking Labor into the 2028 election.
Chalmers, 47, is the obvious frontrunner to succeed him, but not the only horse in the field. And, apart from Chalmers, other aspirants might be concerned time would pass them by if there was not a transition next term.
Home Affairs minister Tony Burke, 55, from the right in NSW, is ambitious and canny; he has delivered to the unions and could look to support from that quarter. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, 57, who hails from the Victorian right, also sees himself as a potential successor.
The left’s Tanya Plibersek, 55, is a favourite with the party rank and file but could struggle to get enough backing in a leadership transition during a second term. Energy Minister Chris Bowen, 52, has had a tough time selling the government’s energy transition policy; in the past he was seen as a serious leadership contender, but doesn’t make it into dispatches these days.
If the Labor leadership is contested, the rules provide for a ballot of the rank and file. That contributes 50% of the result, with caucus providing the other 50%. A transition in government during the term either would not involve a formal ballot or, if it did, the rules would be changed to override the provision for a long grass roots contest.
The dynamic between Chalmers and Albanese in a second-term government would be closely watched. There have been some differences between the two over the past three years, notably over the recalibration of the Morrison government’s tax cuts. Chalmers eventually won his push to change them. The treasurer’s loyalty to Albanese has not been in question. But the contrast in their communication skills has been widely remarked on.
The usual pattern of these things is that a treasurer who sees himself as a future prime minister becomes increasingly impatient as time goes on. Paul Keating, who eventually toppled Bob Hawke, and Peter Costello, who never got to the point of challenging John Howard, are examples.
While Albanese has obviously not had to watch his back this term, the dynamic would be different next time around. The example of Scott Morrison is instructive. After he unexpectedly won the 2019 election, Morrison was seen as untouchable. Fast forward to before the following election and some in the Liberal party approached treasurer Josh Frydenberg to try to replace Morrison. He rebuffed them.
Looking across the board, it’s notable that the most impressive Labor leaders currently are two state premiers, Chris Minns in NSW and Peter Malinauskas in South Australia. Both are centrist, pragmatic, unifying figures who come across well. Many in Labor might regret they are not in the federal parliament (although the leadership aspirants would be relieved).
On the other side of politics, if 54-year-old Peter Dutton loses, what happens with the Liberal leadership? The size of the loss would be crucial. If Labor remained in majority, that would be such a major failure Dutton would surely be replaced immediately. If he picked up a respectable number of seats, on the other hand, he would likely be kept on. He has worked his relationships within the Liberal party well; he is seen as more consultative than, for example, Morrison or Malcolm Turnbull.
But how long would he last as leader? If the Coalition was only a whisker away from power, he might get a second crack in 2028. However if Labor, although in minority, was looking solid, the Liberals would start thinking about a new leader.
Their problem is that there is a dearth of frontbench talent.
Taylor, 58, certainly has ambition. But he has not performed well as shadow treasurer, and is not a good retail politician. Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley, 63, is scatty and widely criticised by colleagues. Defence spokesman Andrew Hastie, 42, hasn’t broadened out as much as might have been expected this term, and has the disadvantage of coming from Western Australia, which has limited his visibility.
The loss of Frydenberg at the last election has left the Liberals with a long-term succession problem.
Partly, though not entirely, this goes back some way, to the sort of candidates selected in former years. This is an increasing challenge for both “parties of government”. The talent pool is narrowing.
Fewer potential high flyers are wanting to enter politics. A toxic political culture and greater media intrusion contribute to this. Politicians might never have commanded great respect but they are accorded even less these days, and there are larger rewards elsewhere. Also, political staffs are bigger, and these young hustlers are well placed to secure preselection.
There is another factor. Nowadays there’s more pressure to put forward “local champions” – people who are deeply embedded in their communities. We’ve seen this in the success of the “community candidates” movement – many voters respond to them.
With fewer “safe” seats and this desire for localism, the major parties cannot so easily parachute high flyers into seats in which they don’t live. Labor notoriously tried this with Kristina Keneally, a former senator and former NSW premier, at the last election, and managed to lose what had been the solid Labor seat of Fowler.
The political move to local champions and community candidates, whatever pluses it might have, will over time erode the potential leadership pools of the major parties.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Grattan on Friday: Will there be leadership changes on both sides of politics next parliamentary term? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-will-there-be-leadership-changes-on-both-sides-of-politics-next-parliamentary-term-254203
Source: US State of Hawaii
Posted on Apr 9, 2025 in Latest Department News, Newsroom
STATE OF HAWAIʻI
KA MOKU ʻĀINA O HAWAIʻI
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
KA ‘OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI ‘ĀINA
JOSH GREEN, M.D.
GOVERNOR
DAWN N.S. CHANG
CHAIRPERSON
COMMUNITY INVITED TO HELP SHAPE THE 2025 STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 9, 2025
HONOLULU – Community input is sought to guide wildlife conservation statewide. The DLNR Divisions of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) invite the public to review the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). This review process is an opportunity for residents, conservation partners, and other stakeholders to share their views on conservation priorities for Hawaiʻi’s unique native wildlife and habitats.
The SWAP is a comprehensive statewide framework for conserving species and habitats. Updated every 10 years, the SWAP identifies “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” and outlines voluntary, proactive strategies for protection and restoration.
“We want to hear from everyone — whether you’re a researcher, educator, cultural practitioner, landowner, or just someone who cares about Hawaiʻi’s native wildlife,” said Maya Goodoni, DAR watershed management specialist. “Your insights help ensure the SWAP reflects what matters most to the people and ecosystems of Hawaiʻi.”
The public review will include an overview of the SWAP process, highlight key updates for 2025, and provide space for public questions and feedback.
The SWAP plays a key role in securing federal funding through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program and supports collaborative conservation efforts across the Hawaiian Islands.
The public review will take place virtually via Zoom. Two meeting times, one in the morning and one in the evening, will present the same information.
Meeting details:
PM Session: 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Help us shape the future of wildlife conservation in Hawaiʻi. Join the conversation and share your manaʻo.
# # #
RESOURCES
(All images/video courtesy: DLNR)
More information – SWAP Storymap: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/db7a7d6c37ec4e648bca41dc6549a148
Media Contact:
Patti Jette
Communications Specialist
Hawai‘i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources
808-587-0396
Email: [email protected]
Source: US State of California 2
What you need to know: As Washington, D.C. keeps changing the rules, California is standing strong as a steady and reliable international economic partner.
SACRAMENTO – As President Trump’s economic agenda disrupts the national economy, sends markets spiraling, and creates trade wars with trusted partners, Governor Newsom announced last week that California is open for business. California’s economy remains the fifth largest in the world and will continue to push forward as a proven leader in global trade and investment.
“California knows the importance of trust and dependability, and unlike some folks in Washington D.C., we don’t change the rules with every presidential mood swing. California is a trusted, reliable partner for international trade and investments. We urge countries around the globe to continue to work with us — we’re open for business.”
Governor Gavin Newsom
California is a stable, predictable partner for global trade and investment. Here’s why the world should do business with the Golden State:
Global partnerships and open markets
California has already established partnerships with countries around the world, strengthening the state’s world-leading economy and helping to ensure it maintains its position as the nation’s economic leader.
California is a global powerhouse in international trade, with more than $675 billion in trade flowing in and out of the state annually — the equivalent to more than 16% of the state’s total GDP. While the state’s abundant agricultural products are sold in markets across the world, manufactured goods also dominate California exports, including computers (over $16 billion), aerospace parts and products (more than $8.3 billion), and semiconductor chips and equipment (nearly $6.5 billion). California is the nation’s top exporter in 25 sectors.
The Golden State is also consistently the top state in jobs supported by foreign direct investment (FDI). The United Kingdom and Japan, the state’s number one and two sources of investment, respectively, collectively support more than 257,000 jobs. What’s more, California’s international allies also have a sizable impact on the state’s economy through significant institutional investments that support California jobs. For example, the 8 largest pension funds in Canada have more than $100 billion invested in California.
Over the past few years, California has stepped up with partnerships on clean energy, technology, and climate with the European Union, as well as China and Canada — creating jobs, boosting local economies, and helping prepare the state for the future.
California currently has trade-focused partnerships with the following countries: Armenia, China, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Mexico, and Norway. Many other climate-focused partnerships include expanding commercial ties with strategic allies, recognizing the importance of private sector action.
Economic stability and predictability
California continues to establish industry partnerships and develop long-term economic strategies, building the infrastructure to give businesses confidence and consistency.
Earlier this year, Governor Newsom unveiled California’s statewide Economic Blueprint, a statewide plan built with input from 13 regional plans to drive sustainable economic growth, innovation, and access to good-paying jobs over the next decade.
Proven economic growth and resilience
California has rebounded from economic downturns faster than most, with diverse industries driving growth, from agriculture to AI.
And California’s economy shows no sign of slowing, based on the estimated growth of the 2,400 companies in the Bloomberg World Large & Mid Cap Index. The 101 companies based in California that are members of the index are poised to see revenue increasing 27% on average in 2024, while the 42 German companies will see 4.6% growth and the 156 Japanese firms 7%.
While Washington, D.C. keeps changing the rules, the international community should know California will continue standing strong as a steady and reliable international economic partner for decades to come.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Following is the speech by the Financial Secretary, Mr Paul Chan, at the Citi Hong Kong Macro Investor Conference 2025 today (April 10):
Paul (Head of Markets for Japan, Asia North and Australia of Citi, Mr Paul Smith), Aveline (Chief Executive Officer of Citi Hong Kong and Macau, Ms Aveline San), distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Good morning.
It is a pleasure to join you today at the Citi Hong Kong Macro Investor Conference 2025. Allow me to first express my gratitude to Citi for bringing such a distinguished group of investors, economists, strategists and senior executives from around the world to Hong Kong.
This forum for dialogue and thought-provoking discussions is particularly timely as we face a trade war marked by ruthless imposition of tariffs. Allow me to share with you our position and response to these challenges.
Impact of unilateral tariff measures
Let me make it clear that the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” imposed by the United States on its trading partners are fundamentally wrong – politically, economically, and historically.
These sweeping tariffs are disrupting global supply chains, inflating costs for both businesses and consumers, and creating significant uncertainty for cross-border investments. While “economic nuclear winter” may be an extreme term, we are certainly witnessing challenges to the global trading system unseen in a century.
Most economists agree that the American public, especially those at the grassroots level, will bear the brunt of rising inflation as tariffs increase costs for groceries and daily necessities. Many financial institutions have revised downward their growth forecasts for the US (United States) and the global economy, with some even predicting a recession for both.
China, as a major economy, has wide policy room and a range of tools to mitigate these impacts. Full details of the measures are yet to be seen, but our country has made its stance clear: we are open to resolving trade conflicts through dialogue based on mutual respect, not intimidation.
Ultimately, these developments will reinforce geo-economic fragmentation. We are likely to see three major regional blocs emerge: first, the Asia-Pacific; second, India, the Middle East, and Europe; and third, the Americas.
Resilience of Hong Kong’s financial markets
Now, turning to Hong Kong, I want to highlight that despite the high volatility in the stock market, our financial system has shown strong resilience.
This Monday, when we experienced a significant drop in the stock market, two key points are worth noting.
First, trading activity was robust, with substantial buying and selling interests. The bid-ask spread stayed very tight, signaling strong underlying liquidity. All margin calls were met on time, with no signs of stress.
Second, the Hong Kong dollar remained strong, indicating there was no capital flight. Our Linked Exchange Rate System continues to function effectively, and the money market is operating smoothly.
The Hang Seng Index has started to recover since Monday, and overall, Hong Kong’s financial market continues to operate effectively. Rest assured that our financial regulators are conducting real-time, round-the-clock surveillance across markets. No systemic irregularities have been detected. We will remain vigilant and agile, and ready to take appropriate measures, if needed.
Responding with composure
In the short term, we will implement a suite of measures to support our businesses. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is working closely with the banking sector to ensure that SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) have the liquidity they need. In fact, banks have set aside over US$50 billion for this purpose. We are also supporting these businesses in opening up new markets in the Mainland, the Middle East, and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, including funding support for marketing and brand building. Additionally, we will help them embrace digital transformation to enhance their competitiveness and e-commerce capabilities.
While these short-term measures are essential, our long-term strategy focuses on economic diversification. Several key strategies will guide us.
First, we will leverage our strengths as an international trade centre. With geo-economic fragmentation, China will likely drive more outbound investments and strengthen trade ties with regions like ASEAN, the Middle East and even Europe. Economy is the top priority of the Central Government, and foreign businesses and investments are welcome. This was evident in President Xi’s recent meetings with both international business leaders and domestic private entrepreneurs.
Hong Kong’s unique connectivity with both the Mainland and the world positions us as an ideal gateway and platform for foreign businesses entering the Mainland market, and for Mainland enterprises going global. Hong Kong will be the hub where Mainland and global companies can establish their regional or international headquarters, corporate treasury centres and supply chain management centres.
Second, there will be new opportunities for Hong Kong as an IFC (international financial centre). Given the current geopolitical landscape, Hong Kong is naturally becoming the preferred fundraising market for Mainland companies. Currently, there are over 100 major companies waiting to list on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
And the DeepSeek moment has prompted international investors to reassess China’s technological capabilities and re-evaluate the values of related companies. We believe that more tech companies from the Mainland will list in Hong Kong, and the liquidity of our stock market will be greatly enhanced.
We are also exploring new sources of capital, particularly from the Middle East. Last year marked a milestone with two ETFs (exchange-traded funds) investing in the Hong Kong market listed on the Saudi Exchange. We will encourage quality issuers from the Middle East and Southeast Asia to consider dual primary or secondary listings in Hong Kong.
Finally, at the heart of our long-term economic transformation is innovation and technology, in particular artificial intelligence (AI).
In my Budget this year, I outlined our vision to develop AI as a core industry for Hong Kong. We are pushing forward on five key fronts: supercomputing capabilities, algorithms, data, capital and talent.
To fast-track our innovation and technology ambition, we need innovative enterprises with cutting-edge technologies. We are targeting four key industries: AI and data science, life and health technology, fintech, and advanced manufacturing and new energy. With the support of the Office for Attracting Strategic Enterprises, we have attracted over 80 such enterprises to Hong Kong, which together will invest around US$60 billion in our city, creating about 20,000 jobs.
We recognise the importance of patient capital in this journey. That’s why we established the Hong Kong Investment Corporation Limited (HKIC). Serving as patient capital, the HKIC invests in and guides market capital to support nascent-stage ventures and sectors of tomorrow. It seeks to build a vibrant ecosystem comprising the Government, industry, academia, research and investment sectors. At the same time, it seeks reasonable risk-adjusted financial returns over the medium to long term. To date, it has invested in more than 100 projects, achieving a 1 to 4 co-investment ratio – meaning that for every dollar the HKIC invested, it has attracted four dollars from private investors to follow.
With the development in the Northern Metropolis and collaboration with Shenzhen and nearby cities, we are confident that Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area will emerge as a global financial and innovation centre.
Conclusion: confidence and opportunity
Ladies and gentlemen, we are navigating truly challenging times. The obstacles posed by trade war and geo-economic fragmentation are daunting. However, I want to reassure you that Hong Kong remains steadfastly committed to the “one country, two systems” principle and all the advantages it entails: we will continue to be a free port, maintain our free trade policy, and guarantee the free flow of capital, goods, information, and people. We provide what investors seek: policy clarity, consistency and credibility.
And Hong Kong offers even more: market access, capital, talent and an unparalleled lifestyle – the Rugby Sevens, Coldplay, Art Basel, along with our stunning hiking trails, coastlines, and a vibrant culinary scene featuring 200 Michelin-recommended restaurants. These elements create a unique international metropolitan fabric, making Hong Kong a great city for global talent to live, work and raise a family.
Thank you once again to Citi for hosting this Conference. I wish you all fruitful discussions and a rewarding time here in Hong Kong.
Thank you.
Source:
[PRESS RELEASE – Thursday 27 March 2025] – His Excellency Mr. Antonio Albuquerque Moniz presented his Letters of Credence to the Head of State of the Independent State of Samoa, Afioga Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aletoa Sualauvi II, at a Credentials Ceremony held this morning at the Official Residence of the Head of State at Vailele, accrediting His Excellency as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Portugal to Samoa with residence in Canberra, Australia.
Samoa and Portugal have enjoyed cordial relations since the establishment of formal ties on 9 June 1995. The two countries collaborate in multilateral fora, including the United Nations, to address global challenges such as climate change, ocean governance, and sustainable development. Ambassador Moniz reaffirmed Portugal’s commitment to strengthening cooperation with Samoa, highlighting Portugal’s ongoing support for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and its engagement in the Pacific region through its application to become a Dialogue Partner of the Pacific Islands Forum.
Afioga Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aletoa Sualauvi II welcomed the Ambassador and acknowledged the growing partnership between Samoa and Portugal. He expressed appreciation for Portugal’s advocacy on climate action and ocean conservation, as well as its contributions to international development initiatives that align with Samoa’s priorities. The Head of State conveyed his confidence that Ambassador Moniz’s tenure will further enhance the friendship and cooperation between our two countries.
H.E. Mr. Antonio Albuquerque Moniz holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the University of Lisbon. He joined Portugal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1991 and held various senior positions, including Head of Visa Services and Movement of Persons within the Directorate-General for Consular Affairs. His diplomatic career includes postings at Portugal’s missions in Vienna and Warsaw, as well as serving as Deputy Head of Mission in Berlin. In 2015, he was appointed Consul General at Portugal’s Consulate in Paris. He later served as Portugal’s Ambassador to Cape Verde in 2020 before assuming his current role as Ambassador of Portugal to Australia in 2023. Mr Antonio A. Moniz is married and has one daughter.
END
SOURCE – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Photos by the Government of Samoa (Leaosa Faaifo Faaifo)
Source:
[PRESS RELEASE – 28 March 2025] – Australia’s 2025–26 Budget delivers a record AUD$2.2 billion in development assistance to the Pacific, reinforcing Australia’s enduring position as the region’s largest development partner.
In a time of global uncertainty and tightening donor budgets, Australia is strengthening its support for a stable, resilient and prosperous Pacific. This reflects a clear focus on where the need is greatest and where Australia’s interests are most closely tied.
For Samoa, bilateral support will focus on shared objectives outlined in the recently published
Development Partnership Plan: www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australia-samoa-
development-partnership-plan-2024-2030.pdf.
This includes continued commitment for spending on two flagship programs: Tautai –Governance for Economic Growth (AUD$45 million, 2022-30), Tautua – Human Development for All (AUD$40 million, 2021-29); direct budget support (AUD$105.5 million, 2023-31); and the construction of the Legislative Assembly Office (AUD$30 million, 2024-26 – due for completion April 2026).
Additionally, Australia continues to invest in Australia Awards scholarships and maintain our strong security partnerships with Samoa through our long-term Australian Federal Police, Australian Defence Force, and Australian Border Force presence.
On a regional level, investments include:
– AUD$1 billion Economic Resilience Package to support jobs, skills and inclusive growth
– AUD$81 million Health Resilience Package to bolster health systems and pandemic readiness
– AUD$355 million Climate Action Package to help communities respond to climate-related shocks.
Australia’s total global Official Development Assistance for 2025-26 has increased to AUD$5.1 billion – with the Pacific receiving the largest share.
Australia continues to work closely with Samoa and Pacific partners to deliver support that reflects local priorities. In a shifting global landscape, Australia remains committed to shared progress across the region.
END
SOURCE – Australian High Commission, Samoa
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
The Northern Territory Police Force responded to a pedestrian strike in Alice Springs this afternoon.
Around 3:05pm, police received reports that a female youth had been struck by a vehicle in the vicinity of a skate park in The Gap.
The driver of the vehicle was alerted to the situation and stopped to render assistance. The driver tested negative to roadside drug and alcohol tests and is assisting police with enquiries.
St John Ambulance conveyed the female youth to the Alice Springs Hospital in a serious but stable condition.
Investigations are ongoing.
Police are appealing for any witnesses of the pedestrian strike, particularly those with dash cam footage from the area around that time to make contact on 131 444 and quote reference number P25098053.
Source: Airservices Australia
I would like to start by acknowledging the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung and Bunurong/Boon Wurrung peoples of the Eastern Kulin nation as the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we are meeting this evening and pay my respects to Elders, past and present, as well as any First Nations people here with us or online.
It is great to be here to mark 40 years of Chief Executive Women (CEW).
I hadn’t intended to talk about the RBA’s policy responsibilities tonight, seeing as we are here to recognise the progress in women’s economic empowerment. However, given developments over the past week, I will make a few short comments first.
Inevitably, there will be a period of uncertainty and adjustment as countries respond to the ongoing tariff announcements by the United States administration. It will take some time to see how all of this plays out and the added unpredictability means we need to be patient as we work through how all of this could affect demand and supply globally.
Financial market and economic volatility can be expected as this process unfolds. But there are two points I want to make on this. First, we’re not currently seeing the same degree of impact as previous market events like in 2008 for example. And second, the Australian financial system is strong and well placed to absorb shocks from abroad.
We are closely monitoring financial market conditions here and overseas – as we always do. We continue to engage closely with our fellow financial regulators in Australia, and our central bank counterparts overseas, sharing information and working together. We are carefully considering several factors including the response of our trading partners, additional counter-responses from the US, the response of our exchange rate, and adjustments in other financial markets. A key focus for us is how all this uncertainty is affecting decisions made by households and businesses in Australia.
All of this – together with our usual detailed analytical work and scenarios – is helping us build a fuller picture of the possible impacts as we prepare for the next Monetary Policy Board meeting on 19-20 May. There are a lot of moving parts. We are bringing all this together to form an objective assessment of what it means for the outlook for domestic activity and inflation here at home.
We are mindful of not adding to the uncertainty, and to that end, it’s too early for us to determine what the path will be for interest rates. Our focus remains on our dual mandate for price stability and full employment.
Now, back to our focus for being here tonight.
I’ll reflect on the significant strides in women’s empowerment in the Australian economy and the progress made by women at the RBA over the past 40 years. In doing so, I will provide some reflections on my own leadership journey. I’ll also highlight our efforts to help build the pipeline of future female economists and business leaders.
Over the past 40 years, women’s representation and participation in the Australian economy has undergone a remarkable transformation.
In the mid-1980s, women made up just under 40 per cent of the workforce, with married women’s participation in the labour market especially low. But through persistent efforts – including by organisations like CEW and many of the individuals in the room tonight – women’s participation in paid work has increased considerably.
Law reform has helped, too, with the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 paving the way for further reforms to advance women’s rights, particularly in our workplaces. This progress has been supported by a range of other factors, including greater access to education and child care. The increased availability of more flexible working arrangements – for women and men – has also helped.
Fast forward 40 years and women now account for almost half of the paid workforce. This has given women greater financial independence and social equity, a worthy goal in and of itself. But beyond that, it has expanded the pool of available workers, providing businesses with a larger and more diverse talent base.
There are some estimates for the United States that show that between 20–40 per cent of productivity growth in the 50 years to 2010 could be attributed to better talent allocation.
The idea here is simple. If there are more people working in positions that suit their skills, this maximises their ability to contribute to economic growth and better and more informed decision-making within organisations. It is good for women, good for businesses, good for productivity and the economy, and good for society.
While women’s labour force participation has increased, there’s further progress to be made.
Research from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) shows that fewer than 20 per cent of CEOs are women, while women made up only one-third of board members. The federal public service fares better, with women holding more than 50 per cent of Australian government board positions, and 45 per cent of chair and deputy chair positions.
The gender pay gap remains an issue. Since the mid-1990s, the gender pay gap has narrowed by about 3 percentage points, mostly in the past decade. However, men still earn $28,000 more per year on average than women.
But there are positive signs, particularly for younger workers. Participation rates for those aged 25 and under are now equal for men and women, allowing young women to build skills and experience for future leadership roles.
Indeed, in addition to closing gender gaps being the right thing to do, analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates that it could boost GDP by an average of 9 per cent across OECD countries by 2060. Given our ageing population in Australia, boosting the labour force participation of working-age women is not only desirable, but essential, for economic growth.
At the RBA, we have a wide range of responsibilities and rely on diverse sets of skills and experience to get the job done. Women play an essential role in all aspects of our operations.
But this hasn’t always been the case. In the 1960s and 70s, pioneers like Ann Catling and Margaret Campbell paved the way for gender equity at the RBA. Ann Catling, one of only 13 women on the men’s pay scale at the RBA in 1966, made significant contributions to development economics and gender equity. Margaret Campbell, who began at the RBA in 1967, achieved equal compensation with men while studying full-time at university. Other notable figures include Jillian Broadbent and Kerry Schott, who contributed to the RBA’s first econometric model of the Australian economy.
When I first joined the RBA in the mid-1980s, there were barely any women at the level of section head. In 1996, I was the first female to reach deputy head level in a policy department.
Reflecting on my journey, there were three important milestones for me.
The first was earning a scholarship from the RBA to undertake a Masters degree in Economics at the London School of Economics. It wasn’t just the postgraduate training. It was also an early recognition than my leaders saw promise in me.
The second was a career move when I came back from maternity leave. I was appointed as the deputy head of a new department – Payments Policy. It gave me a completely blank sheet of paper to build something new. I had very direct and regular exposure to the Governor and to the members of the Payments System Board. And I had great leaders – including men who were encouraging of me and other women as we progressed.
The third milestone was my appointment to Assistant Governor (Currency) in 2010 – the first female assistant governor. This was a big change for me. It was a move from a policy to an operational area, in which I was not an expert. I also had to lift my gaze beyond my area of specialty to the enterprise level.
In the last decade, women’s representation at the RBA improved significantly. In June last year, we achieved 40 per cent women in management roles. Women made up 44 per cent of employees, with four of seven Executive Committee positions held by women. 56 per cent of promoted employees were women, and 63 per cent of those promoted to management were women. These promotions were all based on skills and ability.
This progress reflects the RBA’s commitment to inclusion, and it is also a testament to the resilience and determination of women at the RBA.
There are four things I have learnt in my leadership journey. The first is not to undersell myself. Women have to be prepared to promote themselves even if we don’t feel 100 per cent confident. Second is don’t be afraid to do something different. I always took opportunities when they were offered. Most often it was a sideways move. Third, I found people who I trusted to guide me – some internal and, as I became more senior, people from outside the RBA. My contacts at CEW have been important here. Finally, the teams around me are my most valuable resources. They are professional, know what they are doing and always give their best. My job is to draw on that expertise, support them and guide them.
Finally, I want to say a few words on the work the RBA is doing to build a diverse pipeline of future economists, policymakers and business leaders in Australia. There has been a sharp decline in the size and diversity of the economics student population since the early 1990s. The trend raises concerns about economic literacy in society and the long-term health of the economics discipline.
This is an important reason for the RBA’s education program, which engages with students and teachers and provides a range of resources that aim to inspire and support the next generation of economists. Some of our initiatives include school outreach programs and providing educational resources, research into the economics education landscape, and engagements with educational and curriculum bodies.
Today, males still outnumber females by two to one in high school and university economics. Our research confirms that a confidence gap exists for females; that female students tend to underestimate their proficiency when it comes to economics. It is not the case that women can’t do economics – which I am sure will come as no surprise to anyone in this room.
Even among year 12 students who do study economics, a recent RBA study has found that there is a low interest in pursuing economics at the university level, particularly for females. Instead, these students are more likely to enrol in commerce, finance, or arts and social science courses.
One approach to increase the flow of high school students into university economics could be to develop some tailored advocacy to emphasise the connections between economics and other preferred fields of study. Increasing the representation of female role models amongst economists, female economics teachers and female advocates for economics in the public domain could also help.
While we have made significant strides in improving gender equity and increasing female participation both at the RBA and within the broader Australian economy, there is still much work to be done.
I hope that my role as Governor of the RBA – the first woman to hold the role – gives encouragement to women coming up through the ranks of Australian businesses and the public service. You can do it.
Thank you to CEW for the opportunity to speak to you ahead of what I’m sure will be an engaging panel discussion.
