While Maine has some of the best air quality in the nation, there are still pollutants like ground-level ozone and small particles that can harm the heart and lungs. This is especially important to remember during National Air Quality Awareness Week, occurring from May 5 to May 9, 2025. Ozone is produced when sunlight and warmer temperatures create chemical reactions with pollutants emitted by various sources. Particle Pollution is produced from both natural and man-made processes and include things such as dust, soil, soot, smoke and sea salt. Maine’s peak ozone levels occur during the warmer summer months, while particle pollution levels are higher mostly during the summer and winter months. Additionally, May 6 marks World Asthma Day, a reminder of the ongoing battle that many face against respiratory conditions.
In recent years, Maine has seen an increase in smoke from wildfires in the western United States and Canada. When wildfires create smoky conditions, there are things you can do, indoors and out, to reduce your exposure to smoke. Reducing exposure is important for everyone’s health – especially children, older adults, and people with heart or lung disease.
Have enough medication and food (enough for more than 5 days) on hand.
Follow your health care providers advice about what to do if you have heart or lung disease.
If you have asthma, follow your asthma management plan.
If you feel sick, reduce your exposure to smoke and contact your health care provider.
Pay attention to public service announcements, health advisories, and air quality advisories.
Maine DEP forecasts Ozone and Particle Pollution year-round which is available on DEP’s website, via toll free hotline, EnviroFlash emails and text messages. Forecasts are issued using a color-based Air Quality Index created by EPA. Green – good; Yellow – moderate; Orange – unhealthy pollution levels for sensitive people and Red – unhealthy pollution levels for all.
While sensitive people may feel the impacts sooner or at lower levels when the air is in the unhealthy for sensitive groups (USG) or higher category, everyone should think about ways to reduce their exposure. Please take some time to think about how you contribute to air pollution and what you can do to make a positive difference. Here are a few ways to help reduce air pollution in your community especially, on days when the air quality is expected to be unhealthy:
Conserve electricity
Choose a cleaner commute by carpooling or using public transportation where available
Combine errands, reduce trips
Defer the use of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment until early evening hours
Limit idling
Refuel vehicles after dusk
Use environmentally friendly paints and cleaning products
For more information about Air Quality visit Maine DEP’s website.
For additional information, contact: David R. Madore, Deputy Commissioner david.madore@maine.gov
Jammu, May 4, 2025 – In a landmark achievement for Indian student innovation, Japteg Singh Bamrah, a Class 12 student from Dalhousie Public School, has won the prestigious HonorsGradU 2025 Scholarship, securing the coveted “Build a Better Future” Award for his groundbreaking invention—the Solar Mech Engine.
Japteg Singh Bamrah and his Mentor, Dr. Nasir Ul Rasheed, demonstrating the Solar Mech Engine project executed under the Jigyasa Hackathon initiative.
Mentored by Dr. Nasir Ul Rasheed, Senior Scientist at CSIR-Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine (IIIM), Jammu, under the Jigyasa Hackathon initiative, Japteg emerged as one of five global winners out of thousands of entries from around the world. He has been awarded a $10,000 scholarship for his undergraduate education in the United States, along with an additional $5,000 grant for further development and scaling of his innovation. Notably, his project was recognized as the top technology among this year’s winners.
Organized by Honors Graduation, a U.S.-based non-profit supporting student-led sustainability and innovation projects, the HonorsGradU Scholarship is highly competitive, offering only five awards annually across the globe. Japteg is the first and only student from India since the program’s inception in 2012 to top the list, marking a moment of pride for the nation.
During the National Startup Festival held on February 22–23, 2025, at CSIR-IIIM, Jammu, Japteg presented his Solar Mech Engine to Dr. Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of Science and Technology and Vice President of CSIR, who graced the event as Chief Guest. The festival highlighted India’s growing support for grassroots innovation under the “Start-Up India, Stand-Up India” campaign, originally launched by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi in 2015 and spearheaded by Dr. Singh.
The Solar Mech Engine, which earlier won the CSIR Jigyasa Hackathon 2024, is a standalone solar thermal system that operates on Concentrated Heat and Power (CHP) technology. It utilizes the principles of cyclic air expansion and contraction due to temperature differences to convert heat energy into mechanical energy. A key feature is its low-resistance generator, which employs electromagnetic induction for direct mechanical-to-electrical energy conversion. Its unique selling proposition lies in its ability to function as a reversible heat pump, making it a highly efficient and sustainable energy solution.
CSIR-IIIM’s incubation and mentoring of Japteg’s project underscores its commitment to empowering young innovators and transforming their ideas into practical, scalable technologies.
In recognition of his innovation and academic excellence, Japteg has received offers from over ten top universities across the USA, Australia, and Canada, with additional scholarships amounting to $16,000 annually for his undergraduate studies.
With a total grant of $31,000, Japteg Singh Bamrah plans to refine his Solar Mech Engine further and pursue his higher education at a leading global university. His journey from a school innovator to a global sustainability advocate stands as a testament to the power of mentorship, vision, and grassroots innovation in building a better future.
It took an election win, but Anthony Albanese on Monday finally received that much-awaited phone call from US President Donald Trump.
The conversation was “warm and positive,” the prime minister told a news conference, thanking the president for “reaching out”.
“I won’t go into all of the personal comments that he made, but he was very generous in his personal warmth and praise towards myself. He was fully aware of the [election] outcome and he expressed the desire to continue to work with me in the future.”
While they talked about tariffs (as well as AUKUS), the detailed engagement on that sensitive matter was left for later.
Trump, as they say, loves a winner.
When asked earlier in Washington about the Australian election, Trump said he was “very friendly” with Albanese.
“I don’t know anything about the election other than the man that won, he’s very good, he’s a friend of mine,” the president said. Albanese had been “very, very nice to me, very respectful to me.
“I have no idea who the other person is that ran against him.” There’s more than a touch of irony in this, given all the effort by the government and his other opponents to paint Peter Dutton as “Trump-lite”.
The prime minister is likely to meet Trump soon, perhaps in June. Albanese has been invited to the G7 meeting in Canada. Trump may or may not be there but a meeting could be arranged around this.
On the tariff front, the government is readying to defend the local film industry, after Trump announced a 100% tariff on all movies going into the United States.
Arts Minister Tony Burke said: “Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry.”
Indonesia to be Albanese’s first foreign visit of new term
Albanese announced his first overseas visit would be to Indonesia. This will be a particularly important visit, given the significance of the bilateral relationship and the recent Russian request (which Indonesia rejected) to base planes in Papua.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto congratulated Albanese on his win in a call on Sunday.
In the call, Albanese asked the president to host his first overseas visit, and the president said it would be “a great honour” to do so.
Meanwhile, in the next few days Labor’s factions will be jostling over the spoils of victory. The factions work out broadly the membership of the frontbench, but Albanese, given he has massive authority with the huge win, will be able to impose his will in this process where he wants to do so. The prime minister allocates the portfolios.
Although there will be changes, Labor sources are expecting substantial continuity between the old and new ministries, especially at the higher level.
Albanese has previously confirmed top cabinet members, notably Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Marles, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Trade Minister Don Farrell, will remain in their present ministries.
Most interest is in whether Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is moved. Albanese would not say, when asked during the campaign, whether she would remain in environment although he confirmed she would stay in cabinet. Albanese and Plibersek have had a poor relationship over decades. She had expected to become education minister after the last election and was shocked to be given the environment portfolio/
Albanese told his news conference “I want Labor to be the natural party of government”.
Knife out for Angus Taylor
What goes around comes around. Outgoing NSW Liberal senator Hollie Hughes, who blamed shadow treasurer
Angus Taylor for her loss of preselection because he endorsed the candidate who beat her, has unleashed on Taylor’s leadership aspirations.
Hughes told the ABC on Monday she would not support Taylor to be the next leader.
She said the opposition’s economic narrative “was just completely non-existent. I’m not quite sure what [Taylor has] been doing for three years.
“There was no tax plan, I think the economic team has significantly let down the parliamentary team, it’s let down our membership, it’s let down our supporters and it’s let down people in Australia broadly – the fact they had nothing to sell, nothing to say, and clearly had not done the work that was required.”
She said deputy leader Sussan Ley had done “a fantastic job over the past three years and I’m hopeful that she will definitely still be part of our leadership.”
Four names are in the mix for the successor to Peter Dutton, who lost his seat of Dickson in Saturday’s rout. They are Taylor, Ley, immigration spokesman Dan Tehan and defence spokesman Andrew Hastie. None has yet declared their candidature.
Hastie told The West Australian at the weekend, “I certainly want to be able to drive change within the party itself and what that looks like will be up to my colleagues to determine”.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.
The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.
As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.
How can we maintain our crucial security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?
And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?
With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.
We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.
The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.
At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.
A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.
As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.
Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.
The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.
The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.
An idealistic vision for the future
We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.
Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.
Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.
As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.
Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.
We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.
We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.
This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.
The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.
On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.
This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.
It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” approach when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.
But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.
Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
West Hants RCMP Detachment is asking for the public’s assistance in locating 43-year-old Lyndsay Moorhouse, from Three Mile Plains. She was last seen on May 4 in Three Mile Plains.
Moorhouse is described as 5-foot-2 and approximately 200 pounds. She has medium-length blond hair, blue eyes, and glasses. She is believed to be wearing jeans and a black hoodie.
Moorhouse is known to frequent the Halifax area.
Investigators believe that she may be driving a blue 2019 Hyundai Elantra, Nova Scotia licence plate GEB 779. The image included is a stock photo of the vehicle.
When someone goes missing, it has deep and far-reaching impacts for the person and those who know them. We ask that people spread the word through social media respectfully.
Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Lyndsay Moorhouse is asked to contact the West Hants RCMP Detachment at 902-798-2207, or 911 in an emergency. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
More than 18 million Australians voted on Saturday, after walking past countless corflutes, reading campaign flyers and reviewing how-to-vote cards.
The 2025 federal election was Australia’s biggest yet, with 710,000 more people on the electoral roll than in 2022. The Australian Election Commission amassed 250,000 pencils, 240,000 vests, 80,000 ballot boxes and 5,000 rolls of tamper-proof tape to stock some 7,000 polling places.
So, what happens to these materials after polling day? Some are warehoused, ready for reuse next time around. Others are repurposed. But every election also generates a mountain of waste for landfill.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Australia needs to mandate a cradle-to-grave approach to creating, using, recycling and disposing of election materials. Meanwhile, electronic machines and online voting can reduce the need for paper ballots, just as social media campaigns can reduce paper mail drops.
Magill School in the Sturt electorate, like most polling centres, was wrapped in lightweight plastic posters. Clare Peddie
Where do election materials go after the polls close?
In response to inquiries from The Conversation, the Australian Election Commission said most AEC materials, such as tamper-proof tape, vests and pencils, are stored between elections at counting centres. Other materials, such as cardboard voting booths, are recycled or donated to schools or charities.
Most councils require corflutes to be collected within seven days of an election. But no rules govern reuse or disposal. Corflutes are made from polypropylene, a lightweight plastic that is technically recyclable. But it’s not a straightforward process, so most recycling facilities reportedly cannot accept this waste.
Some candidates donate corflutes to schools, childcare centres and charities, because the white reverse side can be used to mount artworks.
Many countries are “greening” their elections. In 2019, India’s election commission directed parties to eliminate single-use plastic including corflutes. In 2024, the United Kingdom’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy outlined strategies for reducing election “pollution”, addressing supply chains and packaging.
Australia relies heavily on disposable election materials. While many of these can be recycled, it’s better to avoid single-use materials.
Parties could also display how-to-vote instructions on posters at election sites, rather than handing out individual flyers that are recycled or thrown away.
In 2022, the AEC introduced plain brown cardboard screens and ballot boxes, saying they are easier to recycle and reuse than previous versions “wrapped” in purple-and-white branded paper. However, Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers says elections will probably always be “highly manual and resource-intensive exercises”. We disagree.
Could Australia use electronic or online voting to reduce waste?
Other countries are introducing online voting to reduce waste. One study in Estonia found the carbon footprint of paper-based voting was 180 times greater than internet-based voting. More than 50% of the population voted online in 2023.
The United States introduced mechanical voting machines in the 1890s, punch cards and scanned ballots in the 1960s, and “direct-recording” electronic voting machines in the 1970s. Today, touch screens are used in many voting booths, with paper records for auditing. Now just 7% of districts rely on paper ballots and hand-counted ballots are rarely used.
Yet electronic voting machines are not without controversy. Security concerns after the 2016 US election resulted in 94% of districts shifting to optical scanning, and use of “direct-recording” electronic voting machines almost halved.
Ireland invested €50 million (A$88 million) into electronic voting machines in 2002, but they were never used due to concerns about potential tampering.
Australia should explore secure options for electronic voting machines and online voting. In its response to The Conversation, the AEC said this would be a matter for parliament to consider, because the law currently demands that elections are in-person events.
Can social media campaigning help?
Social media enables candidates and voters to engage in new ways. For instance, Labor senators Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong took part in a Facebook “pop quiz” on April 29, which had 55,000 views. But social media can amplify misinformation, so consumers need to fact-check what they see and hear online.
Combined, the parties and affiliated groups spent more than A$39 million on advertisements on YouTube, Facebook and Google during the 2025 campaign. The AEC had to update its authorisation guidelines to cover podcasters and other content creators.
This mirrors global shifts towards social media campaigning. During Canada’s 2025 campaign, Liberal leader Mark Carney (who went on to be elected prime minister) created a video with celebrity Mike Myers, reaching 10 million views.
While such creative approaches may engage voters, they still carry a carbon footprint. Carney and Myers’ video likely produced about six tonnes of CO₂ emissions due to the energy and electricity used in production, streaming and viewing.
Mike Myers and Mark Carney used social media creatively in Canada’s 2025 election campaign.
Text messages also connect candidates with voters. Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party sent 17 million texts the election campaign. This equates to 240kg of CO₂ emissions from energy-hungry data centres and personal devices.
Australia should mandate a reduction in the disposal of election materials.
Some print materials may always be needed, because not all voters can access digital content or vote online. But the current situation is unsustainable.
Global experiences show innovation is possible. Australia can reduce its reliance on new, physical materials, while maintaining public trust.
Australia’s newly elected officials have an opportunity to green future elections, adopting a more sophisticated approach to voting in a digital age. There’s no excuse for producing mountains of plastic and paper waste every three or four years. Our nation deserves better.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.
Gary Rosengarten receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Renewable Affordable Clean Energy for 2030 CRC, and is a non-executive board member of the Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity.
Matt Duckham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.
The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.
As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.
How can we maintain our critical security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?
And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?
With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.
We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.
The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.
At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.
A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.
As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.
Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.
The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.
The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.
An idealistic vision for the future
We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.
Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.
Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.
As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.
Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.
We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.
We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.
This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.
The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.
On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.
This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.
It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.
But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.
Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 5, 2025.
Trump’s push on deep sea mining leaves Nauru’s commercial ambitions ‘out in cold’ By Teuila Fuatai, RNZ Pacific senior journalist Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn. The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes
A ‘Trump slump’ has lifted the left in Canada and now Australia – what are the lessons for NZ? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Trying to capitalise on the electoral success of US President Donald Trump, now that his policies are having real-world effects, is proving to be a big mistake for conservative leaders. Australian voters
What is a ‘smart city’ and why should we care? It’s not just a buzzword Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne guitar photographer/Shutterstock More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this share is expected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050. It’s no wonder “smart cities” have
We talk a lot about being ‘resilient’. But what does it actually mean? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McEvoy, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Curtin University Kinga Howard/Unsplash In a world with political polarisation, war, extreme weather events and increasing costs of living, we need to be able to cope as individuals and communities. Our capacity to cope with very real stressors in our lives
Newly discovered tropical oyster reefs are thriving across northern Australia – they deserve protection Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Richardson, Research Fellow in Marine Science, Griffith University Marina Richardson Oysters are so much more than a seafood delicacy. They’re ecosystem engineers, capable of building remarkably complex reefs. These structures act as the kidneys of the sea, cleaning the water and keeping the coast healthy, while
New deal for journalism – RSF’s 11 steps to ‘reconstruct’ global media Australia (ranked 29th) and New Zealand (ranked 16th) are cited as positive examples by Reporters Without Borders in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index of commitment to public media development aid, showing support through regional media development such as in the Pacific Islands. Reporters Without Borders The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators all over the world have pointed out the parallels. In both countries, centre-left governments
In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University Among the many lessons to be learnt by the Liberal-National Coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation Australia. Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people
Second-term Albanese will face policy pressure, devastated Liberals have only bad options Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra On February 1, on The Conversation’s podcast, Anthony Albanese not only declared that Labor would retain majority government, but held out the prospect it could win the Victorian Liberal seats of Menzies and Deakin. This was when the polls were
Election flops – a night to forget for minor parties on the left and the right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxine Newlands, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Cairns Institute, James Cook University Minor parties were all the rage at the last election when, along with independent candidates, they secured almost a third of votes. But they have
‘Dead weight comes to mind’ when thinking about Gazan parents and genocide World Media Freedom Day reflections of a protester Yesterday, World Media Freedom Day, we marched to Television New Zealand in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland to deliver a letter asking them to do better. Their coverage [of Palestine] has been biased at its best, silent at its worst. I truly believe that if our media outlets reported
Independents will not help form government – but they will be vital in holding it to account Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University When the newspapers delivered their standard election-eve editorials, there were few surprises. Former Fairfax papers and smaller outlets offered qualified support for Labor, while the News Corp papers unashamedly championed the Coalition. In Adelaide, The Advertiser ran a
State of the states: 6 experts on how the election unfolded across the country Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney While counting continues nationally, the federal election result is definitive: a pro-Labor landslide and an opposition leader voted out. But beyond the headline results, how did Australians in the key seats in each state vote, and
Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn.
The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes by providing an alternative path to mine the seabed, advocates say.
Titled Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, the order was signed by Trump on April 25. It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in US and international waters.
It has been condemned by legal and environmental experts around the world, particularly after Canadian mining group The Metals Company announced last Tuesday it had applied to commercially mine in international waters through the US process.
The Metals Company has so far been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Currently, the largest area in international waters being explored for commercial deep sea mining is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the central Pacific Ocean. The vast area sits between Hawai’i, Kiribati and Mexico, and spans 4.5 million sq km.
The area is of high commercial interest because it has an abundance of polymetallic nodules that contain valuable metals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper, which are used to make products such as smartphones and electric batteries. The minerals are also used in weapons manufacturing.
Benefits ‘for humankind as a whole’ Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Clarion-Clipperton Zone falls under the jurisdiction of the ISA, which was established in 1994. That legislation states that any benefits from minerals extracted in its jurisdiction must be for “humankind as a whole”.
Nauru — alongside Tonga, Kiribati and the Cook Islands — has interests in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone after being allocated blocks of the area through UNCLOS. They are known as sponsor states.
In total, there are 19 sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Nauru is leading the charge for deep sea mining in international waters. Image: RNZ Pacific/Caleb Fotheringham
Nauru and The Metals Company Since 2011, Nauru has partnered with The Metals Company to explore and assess its block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for commercial mining activity.
It has done this through an ISA exploration licence.
At the same time, the ISA, which counts all Pacific nations among its 169-strong membership, has also been developing a commercial mining code. That process began in 2014 and is ongoing.
The process has been criticised by The Metals Company as effectively blocking it and Nauru’s commercial mining interests.
Both have sought to advance their respective interests in different ways.
In 2021, Nauru took the unprecedented step of utilising a “two-year” notification period to initiate an exploitation licencing process under the ISA, even though a commercial seabed mining code was still being developed.
An ISA commercial mining code, once finalised, is expected to provide the legal and technical regulations for exploitation of the seabed.
In the absence of a code However, according to international law, in the absence of a code, should a plan for exploitation be submitted to the ISA, the body is required to provisionally accept it within two years of its submission.
While Nauru ultimately delayed enforcing the two-year rule, it remains the only state to ever invoke it under the ISA. It has also stated that it is “comfortable with being a leader on these issues”.
To date, the ISA has not issued a licence for exploitation of the seabed.
Meanwhile, The Metals Company has emphasised the economic potential of deep sea mining and its readiness to begin commercial activities. It has also highlighted the potential value of minerals sitting on the seabed in Nauru’s block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
“[The block represents] 22 percent of The Metals Company’s estimated resource in the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone and] . . . is ranked as having the largest underdeveloped nickel deposit in the world,” the company states on its website.
Its announcement on Tuesday revealed it had filed three applications for mining activity in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone under the US pathway. One application is for a commercial mining permit. Two are for exploration permits.
The announcement added further fuel to warnings from anti-deep sea mining advocates that The Metals Company is pivoting away from Nauru and arrangements under the ISA.
Last year, the company stated it intended to submit a plan for commercial mining to the ISA on June 27 so it could begin exploitation operations by 2026.
This date appears to have been usurped by developments under Trump, with the company saying on Tuesday that its US permit application “advances [the company’s] timeline ahead” of that date.
The Trump factor Trump’s recent executive order is critical to this because it specifically directs relevant US government agencies to reactivate the country’s own deep sea mining licence process that had largely been unused over the past 40 years.
President Donald Trump signs a proclamation in the Oval Office at the White House last month expanding fishing rights in the Pacific Islands to an area he described as three times the size of California. Image: RNZ screenshot APR
That legislation, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, states the US can grant mining permits in international waters. It was implemented in 1980 as a temporary framework while the US worked towards ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty. Since then, only four exploration licences have been issued under the legislation.
To date, the US is yet to ratify UNCLOS.
At face value, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act offers an alternative licensing route to commercial seabed activity in the high seas to the ISA. However, any cross-over between jurisdictions and authorities remains untested.
Now, The Metals Company appears to be operating under both in the same area of international waters — the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Pacific regional coordinator Phil McCabe said it was unclear what would happen to Nauru.
“This announcement really appears to put Nauru as a partner of the company out in the cold,” McCabe said.
No Pacific benefit mechanism “If The Metals Company moves through the US process, it appears that there is no mechanism or no need for any benefit to go to the Pacific Island sponsoring states because they sponsor through the ISA, not the US,” he said.
McCabe, who is based in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighted extensive investment The Metals Company had poured into the Nauru block over more than 10 years.
He said it was in the company’s financial interests to begin commercial mining as soon as possible.
“If The Metals Company was going to submit an application through the US law, it would have to have a good measure of environmental data on the area that it wants to mine, and the only area that it has that data [for] is the Nauru block,” McCabe said.
He also pointed out that the size of the Nauru block The Metals Company had worked on in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone was the same as a block it wanted to commercially mine through US legislation.
Both are exactly 25,160 sq km, McCabe said.
RNZ Pacific asked The Metals Company to clarify whether its US application applied to Nauru and Tonga’s blocks. The company said it would “be able to confirm details of the blocks in the coming weeks”.
It also said it intended to retain its exploration contracts through the ISA that were sponsored by Nauru and Tonga, respectively.
Cook Islands nodule field – photo taken within Cook Islands EEZ. Image: Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority
Pacific Ocean a ‘new frontier’ Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) associate Maureen Penjueli had similar observations to McCabe regarding the potential impacts of Trump’s executive order.
Trump’s order, and The Metals Company ongoing insistence to commercially mine the ocean, was directly related to escalating geopolitical competition, she told RNZ Pacific.
“There are a handful of minerals that are quite critical for all kinds of weapons development, from tankers to armour like nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft,” she said.
Currently, the supply and processing of minerals in that market, which includes iron, lithium, copper, cobalt and graphite, is dominated by China.
Between 40 and 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are processed by China, Penjueli said. The variation is due to differences between individual minerals.
As a result, both Europe and the US are heavily dependent on China for these minerals, which according to Penjueli, has massive implications.
“On land, you will see the US Department of Defense really trying to seek alternative [mineral] sources,” Penjueli said.
“Now, it’s extended to minerals in the seabed, both within [a country’s exclusive economic zone], but also in areas beyond national jurisdictions, such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is here in the Pacific. That is around the geopolitical [competition] . . . and the US versus China positioning.”
Notably, Trump’s executive order on the US seabed mining licence process highlights the country’s reliance on overseas mineral supply, particularly regarding security and defence implications.
He said the US wanted to advance its leadership in seabed mineral development by “strengthening partnerships with allies and industry to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources”.
The Metals Company and the US She believed The Metals Company had become increasingly focused on security and defence needs.
Initially, the company had framed commercial deep sea mining as essential for the world’s transition to green energies, she said. It had used that language when referring to its relationships with Pacific states like Nauru, Penjueli said.
However, the company had also begun pitching US policy makers under the Biden administration over the need to acquire critical minerals from the seabed to meet US security and defence needs, she said.
Since Trump’s re-election, it had also made a series of public announcements praising US government decisions that prioritised deep sea mining development for defence and security purposes.
In a press release on Trump’s executive order, The Metals Company chief executive Gerard Barron said the company had enough knowledge to manage the environmental risks of deep sea mining.
“Over the last decade, we’ve invested over half a billion dollars to understand and responsibly develop the nodule resource in our contract areas,” Barron said.
“We built the world’s largest environmental dataset on the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone], carefully designed and tested an off-shore collection system that minimises the environmental impacts and followed every step required by the International Seabed Authority.
“What we need is a regulator with a robust regulatory regime, and who is willing to give our application a fair hearing. That’s why we’ve formally initiated the process of applying for licenses and permits under the existing US seabed mining code,” Barron said.
ISA influenced by opposition faction The Metals Company directed RNZ Pacific to a statement on its website in response to an interview request.
The statement, signed by Barron, said the ISA was being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that opposed the deep sea mining industry.
Barron also disputed any contraventions of international law under the US regime, and said the country has had “a fully developed regulatory regime” for commercial seabed mining since 1989.
“The ISA has neither the mining code nor the willingness to engage with their commercial contractors,” Barron said. “In full compliance with international law, we are committed to delivering benefits to our developing state partners.”
President Trump’s executive order marks America’s return to “leadership in this exciting industry”, claims The Metals Company. Note the name “Gulf of America” on this map was introduced by President Trump in a controversial move, but the rest of the world regards it as the Gulf of Mexico, as recognised by officially recognised by the International Hydrographic Organisation. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company
‘It’s an America-first move’ Despite Barron’s observations, Penjueli and McCabe believed The Metals Company and the US were side-stepping international law, placing Pacific nations at risk.
McCabe said Pacific nations benefitted from UNCLOS, which gives rights over vast oceanic territories.
“It’s an America-first move,” said McCabe who believes the actions of The Minerals Company and the US are also a contravention of international law.
There are also significant concerns that Trump’s executive order has effectively triggered a race to mine the Pacific seabed for minerals that will be destined for military purposes like weapons systems manufacturing, Penjueli said.
Unlike UNCLOS, the US deep sea mining legislation does not stipulate that minerals from international waters must be used for peaceful purposes.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Duncan Currie believes this is another tricky legal point for Nauru and other sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Potentially contravene international law For example, should Nauru enter a commercial mining arrangement with The Metals Company and the US under US mining legislation, any royalties that may eventuate could potentially contravene international law, Currie said.
First, the process would be outside the ISA framework, he said.
Second, UNCLOS states that any benefits from seabed mining in international waters must benefit all of “humankind”.
Therefore, Currie said, royalties earned in a process that cannot be scrutinised by the ISA likely did not meet that stipulation.
Third, he said, if the extracted minerals were used for military purposes — which was a focus of Trump’s executive order — then it likely violates the principle that the seabed should only be exploited for peaceful purposes.
“There really are a host of very difficult legal issues that arise,” he added.
The Metals Company says ISA is being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that oppose the deep sea mining industry. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company/RNZ
The road ahead Now more than ever, anti-deep sea mining advocates believe a moratorium on the practice is necessary.
Penjueli, echoing Currie’s concerns, said there was too much uncertainty with two potential avenues to commercial mining.
“The moratorium call is quite urgent at this point,” she said.
“We simply don’t know what [these developments] mean right now. What are the implications if The Metals Company decides to dump its Pacific state sponsored partners? What does it mean for the legal tenements that they hold in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone?”
In that instance, Nauru, which has spearheaded the push for commercial seabed mining alongside The Metals Company, may be particularly exposed.
Currently, more than 30 countries have declared support for a moratorium on deep sea mining. Among them are Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
On the other hand, Nauru, Kiribati, Tonga, and the Cook Islands all support deep sea mining.
Australia has not explicitly called for a moratorium on the practice, but it has also refrained from supporting it.
New Zealand supported a moratorium on deep sea mining under the previous Labour government. The current government is reportedly reconsidering this stance.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Nauru government for comment but did not receive a response.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Trying to capitalise on the electoral success of US President Donald Trump, now that his policies are having real-world effects, is proving to be a big mistake for conservative leaders.
Australian voters have delivered a landslide win for the incumbent Labor Party, returning Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for a second term with a clear majority of seats.
When he said in his victory speech that Australians had “voted for Australian values”, an unspoken message was that they’d firmly rejected Trumpian values.
Meanwhile, opposition and Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton had such a bad election he lost his own seat. While not the only reason for his electoral demise, Dutton’s adoption of themes associated with Trump backfired.
As recently as mid-February, however, it was a completely different story. Opinion polls were projecting Dutton’s Coalition to win. Betting markets followed suit, pricing in a change of government.
But by March, Labor had pulled ahead in the polls, and exceeded expectations in the election itself. As one commentator put it, the Liberals were “reduced to a right-wing populist party that is all but exiled from the biggest cities”.
Following a Trumpian pathway turned out to be a strategic blunder. And Dutton’s downfall mirrors Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s defeat in Canada’s election on April 28.
In January, Canada’s incumbent centre-left Liberals were heading for defeat to the Conservatives. But there were two gamechangers: the Liberals switched leaders from Justin Trudeau to Mark Carney, and Trump caused a national uproar with his aggressive tariffs and his call for Canada to become the 51st US state.
Pre-election opinion polls then did a dramatic flip in favour of the Liberals, who went on to win their fourth election in a row.
His strategy failed as soon as Trump rolled out “America First” policies contrary to Canadians’ economic interests and national pride. The takeaway for serious right-wing leaders in liberal democracies is clear: let Trump do Trump; his brand is toxic.
Not a universal trend
Trump’s actions are harming America’s allies. His tariffs, disregard for the rule of law, and tough policies on migrants, affirmative action and climate change have seen voters outside the US react with self-protective patriotism.
A perceived association with Trump’s brand has now upended the electoral fortunes of (so far) two centre-right parties that had been in line to win, and had been banking on the 2024 MAGA success somehow rubbing off on them.
Admittedly, what has been dubbed the “Trump slump” isn’t a universal trend.
In Germany, the centre-left Social Democratic-led government was ousted in February, in spite of Trump ally Elon Musk’s unhelpful support for the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
And in the United Kingdom, the populist Reform UK party has risen above 25%, while Labour has fallen from 34% in last year’s election to the low 20s in recent polls.
But other governing centre-left parties are seeing an upside of the Trump effect.
Norway’s next election is on September 8. In early January it looked like the incumbent Labour Party would be trounced by the Conservatives and the right-wing Progress Party.
Opinion polls dramatically flipped in early February, however, boosting Labour from below 20% back into the lead, hitting 30%. If that trend is sustained, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre will get another term in office.
Denmark’s governing Social Democrats have enjoyed a small polling boost, too, since Trump declared he’d like to take Greenland off their hands.
Lessons for NZ’s left and right
The common denominator underlying these shifts to the left seems to be the Trump effect. Voters in countries normally closely allied with the US are turning away from Trump-adjacent politicians.
In 2024, elections tended to go against incumbents. But, for now at least, people are rallying patriotically around centre-left, sitting governments.
Ironically, Trump is harming leaders who could have been his allies. Unrepentant as always, the man himself seemed proud of the impact he had in Canada.
Winston Peters: culture war rhetoric. Getty Images
In Australia and New Zealand, polls in mid-2024 showed support for Trump was growing – heading well above 20%. Australia’s election suggests that trend may now be past its peak.
In New Zealand, with debate over ACT’s contentious Treaty Principles Bill behind it, and despite NZ First leader Winston Peters’ overt culture-war rhetoric (which may appeal to his 6% support base), the right-wing coalition government’s polling shows it could be on track for a second term – for the time being.
While the Trump effect may have benefited centre-left parties in Australia and Canada, polling for New Zealand’s Labour opposition is softer than at the start of the year.
While “America First” policies continue to damage the global economy, centre-right leaders who learn the lesson will quietly distance themselves from the Trump brand, while maintaining cordial relations with the White House.
Centre-left leaders, however, could do worse than follow Anthony Albanese’s example of not getting distracted by “Trump-lite” and instead promoting his own country’s values of fairness and mutual respect.
Grant Duncan 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.
Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators allover the world have pointed out the parallels.
In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.
On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.
Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.
In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.
But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.
A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada
So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.
Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.
Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.
This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.
The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.
Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.
Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.
That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.
Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.
Dutton’s mistakes were bigger
It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.
Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.
From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.
Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.
This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.
The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.
Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.
Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.
David Smith 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.
Garry Begg, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, has released a statement on International Firefighters Day:
“International Firefighters Day honours the courage and sacrifices made by firefighters, here at home and around the world, who risk their lives to keep our communities safe. On behalf of the government and people of British Columbia, I express my gratitude to every firefighter in this province for your unwavering dedication and service.
“Every day, firefighters suit up and protect our homes, businesses, communities; and when wildfires strike, our precious forests. This work is dangerous, yet they heroically put their own safety on the line to protect others.
“As first responders, firefighters are dedicated to the protection of life and property. They are on the front lines of almost every kind of emergency in our society, including the toxic-drug crisis, which has claimed thousands of lives in our province.
“The heroic actions of firefighters have saved countless lives. The work that firefighters do day in and day out is the epitome of public service. Thank you for everything that you do.”
Learn More:
For more information about International Firefighters Day, visit: https://www.firefightersday.org/
May 4, 2025 – Ottawa, ON – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
Today, Canadians and sailors from coast to coast to coast commemorated the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.
We pause with solemn reverence to honour the courage and sacrifice of the sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Naval Reserve, the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Merchant Navy. As we contemplate a time of renewed great power competition and with a major land war underway in Europe, their legacy resonates now more than ever.
The Battle of the Atlantic, the longest of the Second World War, ensured that reinforcements and supplies made it to Europe, enabling the hard-fought Allied victory. Its cost was profound: over 2,100 Canadian sailors, more than 1,700 merchant mariners, and over 900 aviators lost their lives. We should never forget that it was also a battle that came to Canadian waters as well with 23 ships sunk in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence River.
The bravery and resolve of those who served continue to inspire. Their story is a proud and enduring chapter in Canadian military history. Today, our sailors carry that legacy forward—steadfast in their duty to serve and defend Canada, ready to safeguard all three of our coasts and oceans.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, spoke with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Christopher Luxon.
Prime Minister Luxon congratulated Prime Minister Carney on his election. The leaders discussed deepening trade and commercial ties between Canada and New Zealand. They also agreed on the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
In recent years, Canadians have been subjected to both severe wildfire smoke and extreme heat events, as evidenced by the record-breaking 2023 wildfire season and the 2021 heat dome. Western Canada in particular has a long history of wildfires and heat waves, and with climate change, communities have experienced an increasing number of days per year affected by wildfire smoke or extreme temperatures.
It’s well understood that exposure to either wildfire smoke or extreme heat poses a significant threat to health. For example, there is substantial evidence linking wildfire smoke to an increased risk of hospitalizations for lung or heart complications, with emerging evidence that exposure may also affect birth outcomes and cognitive function. Similarly, we know that extreme heat can increase the risk of illness or death from conditions related to our lungs, hearts and brains.
However, most available research has focused on the effects of these climate hazards in isolation, without considering what the health risks might be when wildfire smoke and extreme heat happen at the same time. We live in a complex world where we’re rarely exposed to one hazard at a time, and wildfire season overlaps with the warmest months of the year, making it essential to consider the potential risks of concurrent exposure to heat and smoke.
While only a handful of studies have explored the effects of co-occurring wildfire smoke and extreme heat events, early evidence indicates that simultaneous exposure may actually amplify the adverse health effects, leading to worse respiratory, cardiovascular and birth outcomes than either exposure on their own.
This emerging evidence of amplified effects, paired with expected increases in Canadians’ exposure to both wildfire smoke and extreme heat, prompted me and my colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to explore how often, and where, these climate hazards are co-occurring in Canada. In doing so, we aimed to identify priority communities to guide public health communication and adaptation planning in the face of hotter and smokier summers.
When wildfire smoke and extreme heat co-occur
To understand how often communities are simultaneously exposed to wildfire smoke and extreme heat, we analyzed 13 years of temperature and air pollution data across British Columbia. We calculated the number of days affected by both wildfire smoke and extreme heat in each dissemination area (small, government-defined geographic regions that have an average population of 400-700 people). We also assessed if the frequency and intensity of these simultaneous climate hazards has changed over time.
The number of days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010-2022. The number of days are calculated for each community (dissemination area) in British Columbia. (Cleland et al., 2025), CC BY-NC-ND
We found that wildfire smoke and extreme heat frequently co-occur in British Columbia, with all communities experiencing at least seven, and upwards of 65, days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010 to 2022.
We also identified that the frequency and intensity of these events has escalated over time, with 42.5 per cent of communities (approximately 1.9 million people) experiencing significant increases in their exposure. For example, between 2018 to 2022, communities on average experienced 4.5 days per year with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat, compared with only one day per year between 2010 to 2014.
Trends in the number of days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010-2022. The left figure illustrates which communities (dissemination areas) experienced significant increases in their exposure, and the right figure illustrates the number of days with simultaneous exposure during each year of the study period. (Cleland et al., 2025), CC BY-NC-ND
We also found that communities across the province were not equally affected by these co-occurring wildfire smoke and extreme heat events. Those in the northeastern and south-central regions of British Columbia tended to experience more frequent and intense exposure.
When we dug a bit more into the characteristics of these highly exposed communities, we found that they were primarily located in rural and remote regions of the province, often with lower socioeconomic status and a higher proportion of susceptible populations, such as older adults.
These types of communities tend to have lower resilience and adaptability to climate hazards, with reduced access to the resources necessary to follow public health guidance and reduce their exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat.
Preparing for hotter and smokier summers
Our findings, together with evidence of amplified health risks, make it clear that Canada needs to prepare for hotter and smokier summers. There is also a clear need to increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of rural and remote communities in certain regions of British Columbia.
To do so, we need to invest in strategies that account for the unique ways in which a community experiences wildfire smoke and extreme heat as well as their specific needs and susceptibilities.
While Health Canada and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control provide guidance on actions to take when exposed to wildfire smoke and extreme heat together, a recent review of public health guidance on simultaneous exposure to smoke and heat found that the current messaging is often incomplete and inconsistent. This unclear messaging can make it difficult for communities to adequately plan and prepare for these recurrent and intense climate hazards.
Additionally, a lot of the strategies that cities currently rely on to reduce exposure to smoke or heat do not account for the complex world of multiple hazards. For example, cities often open cooling centres during periods of extreme heat to provide access to air conditioning, but these centres don’t always have air filtration.
Similarly, cities often designate cleaner air spaces during periods of wildfire smoke to provide access to clean indoor air, but these spaces don’t always have air conditioning.
Moving forward, Canada needs to invest in co-ordinated public health guidance and adaptation strategies that serve multiple purposes and account for the numerous climate hazards that communities face each year. In doing so, we can better protect the health and well-being of the communities that are experiencing increasingly frequent and intense wildfire smoke and extreme heat events.
Stephanie Cleland receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By M. Tina Dacin, Stephen J.R. Smith Chaired Professor of Strategy & Organizational Behaviour, Queen’s University, Ontario
Over two weekends, audiences were treated to a visually lavish set, flawless choreography and strong vocals. Gaga’s performance in five acts — staged for fans as an opera house set in the Indio, California desert — was a self-reflexive event exploring many influences upon the singer.
Gaga’s performance paid homage to past greats such as Michael Jackson and Prince as well as her different past selves. From donning armour and crutches from her “Paparazzi” persona to her Fame-era look, Gaga showed that where she is today follows and emerges from every iteration of her artistic identity over the years.
The evocation and embodiment of her different selves suggested not only a journey of mixed emotions and struggles regarding fame, but her negotiation and resolution of these struggles as pathways into a promising future.
Lady Gaga, ‘Vanish Into You,’ Coachella 2025 Livestream Feed.
As our work argues, custodians are agents of maintaining the best aspects of cultural continuity, as well as change. Such custodians in workplaces or social organizations facing disruption take valued remnants from the past and curate them to be accessible and relevant for the future.
Custodians of hope are deliberately prospective — meaning, they cultivate expectations and concrete visions for the future.
They craft futures that are worth preserving. They do this by translating current and past practices through renewal and reinvention and by keeping things continually refreshed. Gaga did this by reimagining her past hits during her performance and by injecting them with a new and renewed sense of energy and style.
As writer Coleman Spilde’s brilliant review in Salon noted, Gaga’s performance reminds us that in a world where it is easy to feel defeated, “beauty is not lost; its just harder to find.”
Throughout several of the numbers performed during her Coachella set, Gaga showed that existing in the present is not so simple. Battles are fought and choices must be made. By embodying resilience, Gaga gives us hope and inspiration that in a world full of volatility and despair, small acts of resistance and emotional contagion can craft and re-craft the future.
Yet Gaga goes beyond merely preserving tradition. As a custodian, Gaga curates the past, showing us that tradition is not simply the weight or remnant of the past. Bits of the past are reworked and recrafted as she selectively incorporates past styles of Prince and Michael Jackson into her performance as well as nods to fashion moments of her varied personas.
However, invoking the past is not enough. To realize change, custodians need to evoke emotion to enlist others. As sociologist Ann Mische suggests, hope is ultimately an emotion of possibility.
As a custodian of hope, Gaga takes audiences through an emotionally laden and inclusive journey that reminds us how struggles can be overcome through acts of confrontation, defiance and resilience. For example, during her performance of “Poker Face” performed on a chess board, Gaga confronts a blond figure, an earlier version of her past self.
Early on in her second performance at Coachella, Gaga experienced a wireless microphone failure and grabbed a connected mic and exclaimed “I’m sorry my mic was broken for a second; At least you know I sing live; And I guess all we can do is our best; I’m definitely giving you my best tonight; I love you so much,” sending the crowd into an uproar.
The audience experienced a collective sense of resilience or effervescence, in what seemed to be a public celebration of generosity and improvisation above perfection.
Collective sense of care
Through interactivity with the audience via the live performance and livestream, fans are drawn in to co-imagine the future not through Lady Gaga but with her. Asking the crowd to raise their “monster paws” signals encouragement and support highlighting the importance of a sense of collective care.
In addition to evoking emotion, Gaga reminded us of the importance of anchoring her vision for the future in the collective sense of care embedded in the Born This Way Foundation. For example, her #BeKind365 platform has logged millions of acts of kindness since its inception. This shows how value can be generated through structured supports or programs that link positive emotion with specific and concrete acts.
Gaga curates as well as extends the past through renewal and reinvention to enlist new believers into a plausible path forward. Her performance underscores that hope is not a one-off moment but rather, an ongoing custodial effort of curating and reconciling the past towards a kinder and more authentic future.
M. Tina Dacin 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.
Cannabis is undoubtedly a polarizing substance. On one side: a century of restrictive laws made cannabis illegal. This was based on little science. On the other side: a torrent of wellness claims encourage consumers to buy cannabis products. These claims are also based on little science.
Are there risks involved for these cannabis users?
The good news is that an increasing amount of research is available to guide both individuals and policymakers. Our new study, which examines cannabis use among young adults, contributes to this body of information. We provide insights into what may increase risk, and which young people are more likely to experience this risk.
What makes cannabis use risky?
First, using cannabis doesn’t necessarily lead to problems for those who use. In fact, many people experience different benefits from their cannabis use — that’s why they use it in the first place.
At the same time, about five per cent of people who use cannabis in Canada are at risk for addiction and other harms.
Why, then, do some people develop these problems while others don’t?
Cannabis use can look very different from person to person depending on aspects like frequency, reasons for use, social contexts (whether you’re using alone or with others) and quantity. In our recent study, we found that certain characteristics tend to be linked to cannabis use problems.
These include:
Using alone
Using multiple times per week
Using more than two grams per session
Using to cope with negative feelings
Using to make activities more pleasurable
Using to have new experiences
Our findings echo other research, especially when it comes to frequency, using to cope and using alone. This highlights how cannabis use problems don’t happen in a vacuum: they’re part of a more complex pattern of use.
The impact on sexually diverse youth
To complicate things further, various groups of young people may be more or less at risk of falling into these patterns. Of particular interest are sexually diverse youth (for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer youth), as they are more likely both to use cannabis, and to develop problems linked to their use.
Our analysis revealed a striking difference: sexually diverse youth were three times more likely than heterosexual youth to have riskier patterns of cannabis use.
This does not reflect any inherent differences between these groups. Rather, sexually diverse youth also reported higher stress levels, and this is what explained their riskier cannabis use.
We also explored other explanations.
For instance, sexually diverse youth also experience more depression and anxiety, and this has been linked to cannabis use. However, even when taking depression and anxiety into consideration — which were higher among sexually diverse youth in our study — stress stood out as the key association with risky cannabis use.
Recognizing the role of stress in cannabis use disparities among sexually diverse youth is not new.
In fact, the most prominent reason put forward to explain these disparities is that sexually diverse youth face an additional challenge in their lives identified as “minority stress.” Minority stress refers to the collection of health consequences resulting from marginalization, ranging from outright discrimination to internalizing negative messages about oneself.
Minority stressors have been linked to cannabis use among sexually diverse youth. However, our study reveals something a bit different. We found that more general sources of stress — like not feeling in control of one’s life or being overwhelmed by unexpected events — were key in predicting riskier use.
Better mental health support is key
The bottom line is that sexually diverse youth are facing more challenges and stress than their heterosexual counterparts.
Marginalization spreads in insidious ways. For sexually diverse youth, this means not only having more stress to cope with, but also fewer adequate, safe mental health resources. Indeed, sexually diverse youth face many barriers when it comes to accessing mental health services.
What our study underscores then, is that cannabis use can become a key way of coping when stress is high and other options for support are unavailable.
There are lots of ways that cannabis use can be lower risk: using less often, using with others rather than alone, using less at a time, and having other methods aside from cannabis to cope with negative feelings.
However, these options must be available to sexually diverse youth. The implication therefore becomes clear: if we want to tackle disparities around cannabis use problems, we must improve mental health support for sexually diverse youth.
It’s essential we don’t lose sight of the uneven terrain young people are navigating — especially those already facing elevated stress due to social marginalization. Risk isn’t inherent to cannabis, but it emerges in context. Our findings underscore the need for accessible, affirming mental health resources that can offer real alternatives to coping through substance use.
Kira London-Nadeau receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. She is affiliated with project Voxcann.
Charlie Rioux received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Quebec Health Research Fund, and Research Manitoba.
Natalie Castellanos-Ryan receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé.
If the United States imposes 25 per cent tariffs on exports from Canada, nearly all economists agree a recession is inevitable. Estimates are that between 600,000 to 2.4 million jobs are at risk.
Adding insult to injury, about 55 per cent of Canadians are covered by employer-sponsored drug plans, which means that when these workers get laid off, they also lose their health benefits, including prescription drug insurance tied to their jobs.
Affordability of prescription drugs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Statistics Canada, about one-fifth of the population reported not having insurance to cover prescription medications. This coincided with a soaring unemployment rate that peaked at 13.7 per cent in May 2020. The problem of not having insurance for prescription medications was especially acute among immigrants and racialized people. These are the same groups of people that will be at the highest risk of any recession-linked job losses.
Unsurprisingly, 23 per cent of those without insurance spent more than $500 out-of-pocket in 2022 on prescription drugs compared to 10 per cent for those with insurance. Canadians in the lowest income quintile spent more money on prescription drugs in absolute terms than those in the highest income quintile ($296 versus $268) in 2009, and it’s unlikely this disparity has significantly changed.
Already there are estimates that the lack of access to prescription drugs leads to 370 to 640 premature deaths due to ischemic heart disease, 550 to 670 premature deaths from all causes among people 55-64 years of age and avoidable deterioration in health status in 70,000 people age 55 and over.
Added to the threat of losing prescription drug coverage with job loss is the very real possibility that drug prices will increase. Thirty-two per cent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients that go into the medicines that North Americans take originate in China. U.S President Donald Trump has now threatened to slap U.S. tariffs on Chinese drugs and drug ingredients that were previously exempt.
Canada already imports $8.76 billion annually in prescription drugs from the U.S. To the extent that tariffed drugs go from China to the U.S. to Canada, the cost of both publicly and privately funded drug plans will increase.
Those people at the bottom of the income scale who pay out-of-pocket — and can least afford to pay more — will be saddled with those higher prices. If Canada follows the U.S. in imposing tariffs on drugs made in China, as we have done with electric vehicles, then the price of generic drugs made in Canada from Chinese ingredients will also rise.
We can hope that any tariffs — on Canada or China — will be only temporary and we can avoid the ongoing effects on both access to prescription drugs and their price. But given Trump’s volatility and unpredictability, we can’t rely on that outcome.
Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal. He is a member of the Boards of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jeffrey B. Meyers, Instructor, Legal Studies and Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
In the most non-controversial and basic sense, the rule of law means formal legality. The law binds citizens and governments. When it comes to nation states, law is enacted by democratically elected legislatures; legal statutes are openly available and sufficiently clear to follow. State actions can be judicially reviewed for compliance with a constitution.
In its more ambitious conceptualization, the rule of law can also be understood to include substantive human rights and equity. In Canada, The Constitution Act of 1982 references the rule of law in its preamble.
The modern Canadian iteration of the rule of law — which includes substantive ideas about human rights as well as Indigenous treaty rights — is based on liberal ideas shared by many countries, including, historically, the United States. What distinguishes a rule-of-law state from an authoritarian one to a large extent is whether state actions can be judicially reviewed for compliance with a constitution.
Although rule of law scholars debate the parameters of the concept of the rule of law, few would debate that what is happening during U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term presents anything other than a wholesale attack on the rule of law both domestically in the U.S and internationally.
I am a rule of law researcher, educator and lawyer. Since Trump was elected to his first term in 2016, I’ve relied on American scholars, from a variety of disciplines, to understand what is happening.
Both Stanley and Snyder explore the similarities between what is occurring in Trump’s America, Viktor Orban’s Hungary, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and, equally chillingly, between Trump’s America and Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Even prior to the first Trump presidency, Stanley already asked in his 2015 book, How Propoganda Works, whether the U.S., “the world’s oldest liberal democracy,” might already have become a liberal democracy “in name only?”
In his 2018 book, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Snyder described Trump as a “sado-populist, whose policies were designed to hurt the most vulnerable people of his own electorate.”
Similarly, Snyder’s focus on the similarities between Trump and other authoritarian leaders, through their attachment to extreme illiberal ideologies, helped frame public discourse in the U.S. during the first Trump presidency. “Illiberal” does not imply conservative in opposition to “being liberal” (with the resonance of “leftist”); rather, it denotes a repudiation of liberal democracy, in the words of political scientist Thomas J. Main.
In the introduction to his bestselling 2020 book, How Fascism Works, Stanley wrote: “In recent years, multiple countries across the world have been overtaken by a certain kind of far-right nationalism; the list includes Russia, Hungary, Poland, India, Turkey and the United States.”
He explains the choice of the word “fascism” to speak about each of these countries, despite their differences of degree and context:
“I have chosen the label ‘fascism’ for ultra nationalism of some variety (ethnic, religious, cultural), with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf. As Donald Trump declared in his Republican National Convention speech in July 2016, ‘I am your voice.’”
In his similarly bestselling book, On Tyranny, published in 2017, Snyder wrote: “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is not basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.”
Now that Trump is back in office, Stanley and Snyder, as well as Snyder’s Yale colleague and spouse, Marie Shore, the celebrated author of The Ukrainian Night, are leaving Yale for Canada with good reason.
Author Timothy Snyder speaks about Democracy and the Risk of Tyranny with Public Policy Forum.
Shared mutual concern
While the departure of a handful of prominent academics is hardly a trend, it raises questions about whether there will be an accelerated academic “brain drain”, or more American students in Canada.
As a Canadian, I would like to say America’s loss is our gain, and I wish these scholars well. I am also aware that narratives of flight to Canada as refuge have historically bolstered national myths while obscuring Canadian inequities. My hope is that Canadians will not observe the arrival of U.S. scholars with smugness, but instead with shared concern.
We should not be blind to this unique moment in which Canada is called to revisit why we care about Canada and keep watch on the rule of law. Yet, we must also recognize our own profound historical blind spots.
Too much cynicism might prevent us from acknowledging the importance of these three scholars’ decisions to leave their country and come to ours at this particular time in history. However, my hope is also that we are also inspired by their considerable truth-telling skills to demand Canada also do better.
Jeffrey B. Meyers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators allover the world have pointed out the parallels.
In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.
On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.
Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.
In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.
But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.
A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada
So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.
Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.
Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.
This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.
The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.
Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.
Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.
That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.
Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.
Dutton’s mistakes were bigger
It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.
Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.
From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.
Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.
This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.
The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.
Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.
Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.
David Smith 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.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 4, 2025.
Too many journalists remain silent over the Gaza genocide, a threat to our media credibility Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – By David Robie on World Press Freedom Day 2025 I ask you now: Do not stop speaking about Gaza. Do not let the world look away. Keep fighting, keep telling our stories – until Palestine is free. These are not my words, although I believe and
Labor makes Senate gains, and left-wing parties will hold a Senate majority Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne On Saturday, Labor won a thumping victory in the House of Representatives, and this has carried over to the Senate results. Only 35% of enrolled voters have
Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted By Anish Chand in Suva Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has paid tribute to all those working the media industry in his message to mark World Press Freedom Day. He said in his May 3 message thanks to democracy his coalition government had removed the “dark days of oppression and suppressions”. “Today as we join
Albanese increases majority and Dutton loses seat in stunning election landslide Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government has been re-elected with a substantially increased majority, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his seat, in a crushing defeat of the Coalition. As of late Saturday night, there was a two-party swing to Labor of
Labor wins election in landslide: full results Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation The Conversation, CC BY-SA Digital Storytelling Team 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. Labor
Labor wins surprise landslide, returned with a thumping majority Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne With 52% of enrolled voters counted, The Poll Bludger has Labor ahead in 92 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the Coalition in 43, the Greens
Labor routs the Coalition as voters reject Dutton’s undercooked offering Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra In a dramatic parallel, what happened in Canada at the beginning of this week has now been replicated in Australia at the end of the week. An opposition that a few months ago had looked just possibly on track to
Dutton and the Coalition did not do the work, and misread the Australian mood Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University The former federal director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, used to tell media companies that their practice of commissioning expensive opinion polls right through a parliamentary term was a waste of money. Election 2025 seemed to vindicate
Labor wins with a superior campaign and weak opposition – now it’s time to make the second term really matter Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra Superior campaigning by the Labor machine, a lift in the personal performance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a woeful campaign by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have seen Labor
Albanese’s government might not thrill, but it has shown unity and competence – and that’s no mean feat Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University The Coalition’s election campaign of 2025 has a strong claim to be considered among the worst since federation. I know of none more shambolic. Barely a day passed without some new misstep
Palestine protesters march on TVNZ, accuse broadcaster of bias on Gaza Asia Pacific Report About 1000 pro-Palestinian protesters marked World Press Freedom Day — May 3 — today by marching on the public broadcaster Television New Zealand in Auckland, accusing it of 18 months of “biased coverage” on the genocidal Israeli war against Gaza. They delivered a letter to the management board of TVNZ from Palestine
It’s believed the children wandered away from a home on Gairloch Rd. in Lansdowne Station.
The search for Lily and Jack continued through the night and will continue as necessary to support the missing persons investigation. Ground search and rescue teams and air services from the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association and the Department of Natural Resources are contributing assets.
“Search teams have been strategic and thorough in their work,” says Inspector Mike Ingles, Acting District Policing Officer. “They’re using a variety of tools and resources as they look for the children in the heavily wooded rural area. Anyone with information regarding the whereabouts of Jack and Lily who hasn’t already spoken to police is asked to contact the Pictou County District RCMP.”
When the children were reported missing, a vulnerable missing persons alert was issued in Pictou County. As the children have not yet been located, a broadcast intrusive alert was issued today, at approximately 5:27 p.m., to Antigonish, Colchester, and Pictou counties.
Investigators continue to ask that the public avoid the search area to allow trained searchers to do their work.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Pictou County District RCMP at 902-485-4333. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.
PORTLAND, Ore., May 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Clackamas Progress Partners (CPP), a Fengate Asset Management-led (Fengate) consortium, today announced the completion and handover of the new Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse – the first courthouse to be delivered as a public-private partnership (P3) in Oregon.
CPP – comprising Fengate (developer), PCL Construction (design-builder), DLR Group (designer), and Honeywell (NASDAQ: HON) (services provider) – joined client Clackamas County, the Oregon Judicial Department, and public officials on site for a ribbon cutting ceremony to mark the opening of the new 257,000-square-foot courthouse.
Karl Schaefer, Fengate Project Executive for the Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse Replacement Project, said:
“The new Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse is the epitome of P3 success – complex public infrastructure delivered efficiently, sustainably, and collaboratively with our public sector partners. We are grateful to our valued trade partners for their hard work to deliver this state-of-the-art courthouse on schedule for the Clackamas County community. Our P3 team is honored to have brought this decades-long vision to life for Clackamas County, and we congratulate our client on the official opening of their new home of justice.”
Fengate is managing this investment on behalf of Fengate Infrastructure Fund IV and its affiliated entities, including an investment by the LiUNA Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada.
W.T. Sermeus, Senior Project Manager at PCL Construction, said:
“Delivering the Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse was a true team effort – one that reflects the power of partnership, innovation, and accountability. From day one, our focus was on creating a high-performing, enduring facility for the County and the justice system it supports. Thanks to our subtrade and design partners whose collaboration made this vision a reality.”
Billal Hammoud, President and Chief Executive Officer of Honeywell’s Building Automation segment, said:
“The innovative Honeywell automation solutions being used in this new home for justice will help ensure a more efficient and secure environment for Clackamas County residents. We are grateful to Fengate, PCL Construction and DLR Group for the commitment and collaboration that led to the on-time grand opening of this state-of-the-art facility.”
Erica Loynd, FAIA, Northwest Region Leader and Principal at DLR Group, said:
“We didn’t just want to build a courthouse. Every aspect of the building focuses on the people within the space, from citizens coming to have one of their most important moments to the staff who spend every day in the building.”
A landmark for sustainable civic infrastructure, the facility targets LEED Gold certification and is expected to achieve an annual greenhouse gas reduction of 62.2% during operations. With several environmental and social impact accolades, the award-winning facility demonstrates how successful collaboration between the public and private sectors can revitalize and help decarbonize infrastructure in the United States.
The new facility meets the needs of Clackamas County’s increasing population, which has grown to 430,000 residents in 2025 from less than 50,000 residents in 1936 when the original courthouse was built. Designed to serve the community for decades to come, the courthouse improves the efficiency and safety of the local judicial system with 16 modern courtrooms, 20 judicial chambers, district attorney offices and safe corridors for courthouse users.
CPP was contracted in 2022 to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the new courthouse for a 30-year period. The partner companies have completed more than 40 courthouse construction projects across their combined portfolios.
Further information about the new Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse is available here.
About Fengate
Fengate is a leading alternative investment manager focused on infrastructure, private equity and real estate strategies, with more than $7 billion of capital commitments under management. The firm has been investing in infrastructure since 2006 with a focus on mid-market greenfield and brownfield infrastructure assets in the transportation, social, energy transition and digital sectors. Fengate is one of North America’s most active infrastructure investors and developers with a portfolio of more than 45 assets. Learn more at www.fengate.com.
About PCL Construction
PCL is a group of independent construction companies that operates throughout the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Australia. As one of the largest contracting organizations in North America, PCL completes more than $8 billion USD in work annually, building projects that shape communities. The company’s 100% employee ownership model fuels a culture of commitment for clients in the buildings, civil infrastructure, heavy industrial and solar markets. With a strategic presence in more than 30 major centers, PCL’s leadership teams consistently drive innovation and set new benchmarks for excellence, bringing unparalleled skill to every project. Watch us build at PCL.com.
About DLR Group
DLR Group is an integrated design firm delivering architecture, engineering, interiors, planning, and building optimization for new construction, renovation, and adaptive reuse. Our promise is to elevate the human experience through design. This promise inspires sustainable design for a diverse group of public and private sector clients; local communities; and our planet. DLR Group is 100 percent employee-owned and fully supports the initiatives and goals of the 2030 Challenge and is an initial signatory to the China Accord and the AIA 2030 Commitment.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
King leads nation in tribute to the greatest generation
His Majesty The King will join Second World War veterans in London tomorrow for a military procession and fly past to mark VE Day 80
Hollywood actor Timothy Spall will read Churchill speech
Iconic buildings across the country will light up from Tuesday evening in tribute
National two-minute silence will be held at 12 noon on Thursday
Four days of national commemorations to the Second World War generation kick off in London tomorrow with a recital of iconic Winston Churchill speeches by Hollywood actor Timothy Spall.
Timothy Spall will start the events by reading extracts from Churchill’s iconic VE Day victory speech in 1945. Normandy veteran Alan Kennett, 100, will formally start the procession after being handed the Commonwealth War Graves’ Torch For Peace by Air Cadet Warrant Officer Emmy Jones.
The procession, featuring more than 1,300 members of the Armed Forces and youth groups will march down Whitehall, through Admiralty Arch and up the Mall towards Buckingham Palace where Their Majesties The King and Queen, as well as Members of The Royal Family, the Prime Minister and a number of Second World War veterans will be on a specially built platform on the Queen Victoria Memorial.
A fly past, which Members of the Royal Family will watch from the Balcony at Buckingham Palace, will conclude Monday’s events. From 9pm on Tuesday evening, hundreds of buildings across the country will be lit up to mark VE 80. Buildings include Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament, the Tower of London, Canary Wharf’s 1 Canada Square, the Shard, Lowther Castle, Rochester Cathedral, Manchester Printworks, Cardiff Castle, Senedd, Perth Bridge, City Chambers and Belfast City Hall.
On Thursday, a service at Westminster Abbey will begin with a national two-minute silence, which is expected to be replicated across the nation.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:
This 80th anniversary is a moment of national unity. A time to celebrate that hard won peace, honour the memory of those who lost their lives, and remember the sacrifices made by so many to secure our freedom. Their legacy lives on today in how we stand together in defence of the values they fought for and which bind us together as a nation. This week, we come together to salute their service.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said:
80 years ago millions of people celebrated the end of the Second World War in Europe. This week, we will recreate this moment across towns and cities, in our homes, in pubs and on our streets.
We must do all we can to ensure that the stories and memories of this period in our history are not forgotten. We must not forget the hardships, the heroics and the millions who lost their lives.
We are here because of the sacrifices they made and the horrors they endured. This week, I urge the nation to come together and send a powerful message: we will remember them.
ENDS
Notes to editors
Across the four days, official events and services will be taking place across the UK to mark 80 years of the end of the Second World War in Europe including events in the Devolved Nations, including:
Monday 5 May:
To ensure the commemorations act as a point of remembrance of the millions who lost their lives in the conflict as well as a celebration of peace, the commemorations will begin in Whitehall. The Cenotaph, the nation’s focal point of remembrance, will be dressed in Union Flags for the duration of the four day commemorations, echoing the 1920 unveiling of the monument to the fallen. From Monday 5 May, it will provide a focal point for the commemorations and a place to pay silent tribute to all those who died, both at home and abroad, during the Second World War.
The VE Day 80 commemorations will continue with a street party on HMS Belfast. HMS Belfast fired some of the opening shots on D Day in 1944 and protected Arctic convoys during the Second World War and is the most significant surviving Second World War warship.
Street parties, barbecues and community get togethers, supported by ideas and inspiration from The Together Coalition and The Big Lunch, will be held by communities across the country, echoing the celebrations 80 years ago as the population welcomed the end of the war.
Tuesday 6 May:
An installation of ceramic poppies will return to the Tower of London to mark the anniversary. Nearly 30,000 of the original poppies from the 2014 display at the Tower, which commemorated the centenary of the First World War, will be displayed in a new installation within the walls of the fortress. This poppies installation will resemble a ‘wound’ at the heart of the Tower, which was itself bombed during the Blitz and still bears some of those scars today. It will mark and reflect on the sacrifices made by so many during the Second World War.
Scotland Salutes VE80 concert will take place at Edinburgh’s Usher Hall.
Wednesday 7 May:
On the evening of 7 May 1945, a newsflash announced that the following day would be Victory in Europe Day. To commemorate this important moment in the nation’s history, the Parliament Choir will host a Victory in Europe Day Anniversary Concert in the famous Westminster Hall at the Palace of Westminster.
At a special VE Day event at IWM North, jointly produced by IWM and the National Theatre, some of the letters that the public submit will become part of a performance along with high profile public figures sharing letters from the IWM collection and excerpts from ‘The Next Morning’.
A National Service of Remembrance will be held at Llandaff Cathedral.
Thursday 8 May:
A service will take place at Westminster Abbey that will be both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war. It will be a moment to give thanks and to honour a generation that showed extraordinary courage and resilience.
The events will conclude with a concert at the historic Horseguards Parade to finish the VE Day 80 commemorations in a celebratory tone, echoing how the nation reacted to the news 80 years before. With more than 10,000 members of the public in attendance, the concert will feature stars of stage and screen including John Newman and Dames Joan Collins, Mary Berry, and Sheila Hancock as well as military musicians and tell the story of victory and the legacy of the Second World War in Europe.
Services of remembrance and community celebrations will take place across Northern Ireland throughout the week. The Government has launched Tip Top Towns, a programme to encourage communities across the country – whether towns, villages or cities – to get together with their communities ahead of 5 May when the nation will come together for street parties to celebrate VE Day. Members of the public are encouraged to get in the VE Day spirit by making their own decorations, planting flowers, encouraging children to draw pictures for their windows or hosting arts and craft sessions.
Full list of buildings being lit up:
London:
Houses of Parliament, London
Elizabeth Tower, London
Buckingham Palace, London
10 Downing Street, London
Battersea Power Station, London
Tower 42 (Natwest Building), London
Millenium Bridge, London
The Shard, London
Tower of London, London
St Paul’s Cathedral, London
London Eye, London
Canary Wharf 1 Canada Square, London
National Theatre, London
British Film Institute, London
The Cenotaph, London
HMS Belfast, London
IWM London, London
BFI IMAX, London
BFI Southbank, London
London Bridge, London
Cannon Street Railway Bridge, London
Southwark Bridge, London
Waterloo Bridge, London
Golden Jubilee Footbridges, London
Westminster Bridge, London
Lambeth Bridge, London
Blackfriars Bridge, London
102 Petty France, London
The National Archives, London
120 Fenchurch Street, London
Twickenham/Aviva Stadium, London
North West England:
IWM North, Salford
Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, Liverpool
Manchester Printworks, Manchester
The Royal Exchange, Manchester
Lowther Castle, Cumbria
Blackpool seafront & tower, Blackpool
Rivington Pike, Chorley
Chorley Town hall, Chorley
North East England:
Durham Cathedral, Durham
Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Newcastle
Glasshouse International Centre, Newcastle
Municipal Buildings, Middlesborough
Town Hall, Middlesborough
Town Hall Clock Tower, Middlesborough
Central Library, Middlesborough
Bottle of Notes, Middlesborough
St Hilda’s Bell structure, Middlesborough
Zetland Car Park, Middlesborough
The Issac Wilson pub, Middlesborough
Dorman Museum, Middlesborough
South East England:
The Spinnaker Tower, Portsmouth
Rochester Cathedral, Rochester
Brighton Royal Pavillion, Brighton
South West England:
Runnymede Air Force Memorial, Surrey
County Hall, Dorset
Aerospace Bristol, Bristol
The Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare
East England:
St Edmundsbury Cathedral, Suffolk
West Midlands:
Birmingham Central Library, Birmingham
Tamworth Castle, Staffordshire
Kings Heath (trees), Birmingham
National Memorial Arboretum, Staffordshire
East Midlands:
Derwent Dam, Peak District
Scotland:
The Kelpies, Falkirk
The Falkirk Wheel, Falkirk
Perth Bridge, Perth
Hamilton House, Lanarkshire
City Chambers, Edinburgh
St Paul’s Church, Perth
Northern Ireland:
Belfast City Hall, Belfast
Titanic Museum, Belfast
Enniskillen Castle, Enniskillen
Strule Arts Centre, Omagh
Parliament Buildings
Wales:
Welsh Government Building in Cathays Park, Cardiff
The Gitanmaax First Nation is implementing an Intervention Circle in the Gitxsan Territory to provide culturally appropriate supports for people at risk of harm, victimization or entering the justice system, and to help build a safer and healthier community.
The Intervention Circle will bring together community-based frontline service providers from the public-safety, health and social-service sectors. They work collaboratively to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the justice system by preventing crime, reducing harm and increasing community safety.
“It’s crucial that people have access to culturally sensitive supports when and where they need them,” said Garry Begg, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. “Ensuring public safety and advancing meaningful, lasting reconciliation are interconnected. The Gitanmaax-led Intervention Circle will help people find culturally sensitive pathways to healing in their own community and prevent incarceration of Indigenous peoples.”
Community-centred Intervention Circles incorporate Indigenous social and cultural institutions with in-community service providers to connect vulnerable people with preventative supports.
“At Gitanmaax First Nation, we understand the importance of fostering a collaborative environment that reflects our values of unity, respect, and restorative justice,” said Jason Wong, chief executive officer, Gitanmaax First Nation. “We believe that every challenge presents an opportunity for growth and healing, and we are committed to addressing difficult situations with a focus on community wellness and reconciliation. By embracing a restorative-justice approach, we aim to bring people together, address underlying issues and promote healing over punishment.”
The Province is providing $50,000 to support the implementation of the Intervention Circle. The Province will also provide funding to train community partners participating in the Intervention Circle.
The Intervention Circle advances the Safer Community Action Plan’s goal of creating safe, healthy communities for everyone. It also responds to recommendations from several reports, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the First Nations Justice Strategy.
Quote:
Judith Sayers, director, B.C. First Nations Justice Council —
“The B.C. First Nations Justice Council is grateful for the leadership of First Nations who are implementing Intervention Circles in their communities and advancing their self-determination over community safety, healing and justice. The aims of the B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy specifically support First Nations in the restoration of their justice systems and legal traditions. Intervention Circles allow First Nations to shift from punitive responses towards a proactive intervention model that integrates their culture, teachings and values. Through their Intervention Circles, Gitanmaax First Nation, along with Esk’etemc and Witset First Nations, are prioritizing the healing pathways and cultural needs of their at-risk members and are forging a new way forward for justice and healing in their communities.”
Quick Facts:
The Gitanmaax First Nation Intervention Circle is the third initiative of its kind in B.C.
Gitanmaax is one of six First Nation communities belonging to the Gitxsan Nation.
Indigenous people make up only 6% of British Columbia’s population but account for 35% of people in provincial custody.
The B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy is designed by and for Indigenous Peoples to reform the colonial justice system and revitalize Indigenous legal practices.
The strategy was endorsed by the Province and the B.C. First Nations Justice Council (BCFNJC) in 2020.
The Declaration Act Action Plan, developed in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous Peoples, outlines 89 specific actions every ministry in government will take to create a better province for Indigenous Peoples in B.C.
Learn More:
To read the B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy, visit: https://bcfnjc.com/landing-page/justice-strategy/
People in Victoria will soon have access to nearly 300 new homes as construction begins on two developments that offer affordable rental and supportive housing.
“We know that different people have different housing needs, and we’re working on every front to help everyone find a place to call home,” said Ravi Kahlon, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. “During a time of economic uncertainty, these homes will lower rental costs for working people and families while bringing people sheltering outside indoors so they can have stability, dignity and support they need to move forward.”
To help families and individuals, including those at risk of or experiencing homelessness, a provincial investment of nearly $100 million is funding the construction of 295 new homes across two separate developments on Pandora Avenue and Discovery Street.
This includes a new 21-storey building at 926/930 Pandora Ave., replacing the existing vacant structures with 158 affordable rental homes, 47 supportive homes and a community space expected to include child care services.
Construction will begin soon, with the homes expected to be completed by spring 2029. The Capital Region Housing Corporation (CRHC) will manage the affordable rental homes, and an experienced non-profit operator will oversee the supportive housing.
“These new homes will provide families and individuals with a place to call home, in their communities and close to their jobs and their support systems,” said Nina Krieger, MLA for Victoria-Swan Lake. “By offering a mix of affordable and supportive housing, we’re helping ensure that everyone can find stability, comfort and a sense of belonging in Victoria.”
Additionally, construction is set to start in May on 90 new supportive homes at 726 Discovery St. for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The eight-storey, steel-frame building will feature 90 studio units, each with a private bathroom.
This project is expected to be completed by mid-2027. Our Place Society will operate the supportive housing at Discovery Street, offering residents daily meals, laundry facilities and a range of 24/7 on-site support services. These will include life-skills training, employment assistance and counselling, as well as access to physical and mental-health care, addiction treatment and recovery services. The building will also feature safety measures such as fenced grounds, a single point of entry, 24/7 staffed reception, security cameras and lighting.
These projects are part of a $19-billion housing investment by the B.C. government. Since 2017, the Province has nearly 92,000 homes that have been delivered or are underway, including more than 4,120 homes in Victoria.
Quotes:
Julian Daly, CEO, Our Place –
“We’re happy to see construction begin on the Discovery Street supportive-housing project, which Our Place Society will be operating. This much-needed resource will provide 90 supportive homes for people in Victoria, offering stability and services to help them thrive. It’s a vital step forward for those we serve and for access to housing in Victoria. The whole community benefits from this.”
Marianne Alto, mayor of Victoria –
“Breaking ground on this project, working with provincial, regional and non-profit partners, is a significant step forward as we address our complex housing crisis. These 295 affordable homes will provide the stability and opportunity needed for more people to build community roots and thrive in Victoria.”
Zac de Vries, chair, Capital Region Housing Corporation–
“Since 2019, with our funding partners, the CRHC has introduced more than 800 new affordable homes to the region, and we won’t stop there. Projects like Pandora show the powerful possibilities of partnership, and the CRHC is excited to get another 158 affordable homes underway in the city of Victoria.”
Learn More:
To learn about the steps the Province is taking to tackle the housing crisis and deliver affordable homes for people in British Columbia, visit: https://strongerbc.gov.bc.ca/housing/
A map showing the location of all announced provincially funded housing projects in B.C. is available here: https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/Building-BC/homes-for-BC
To learn how BC Housing is helping to build strong, inclusive housing communities, visit: https://www.bchousing.org/podcast
SINGAPORE, May 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — With the price of Bitcoin surpassing the $95,000 mark, many analysts believe that Bitcoin will enter a long-term high volatility market. Holding spot positions may not be consistently profitable in the short term. BexBack exchange is stepping up its efforts to provide traders with irresistible preferential packages. The platform now offers a 100% deposit bonus, a $50 new user welcome bonus, and 100x leverage on cryptocurrency trading, creating unparalleled trading opportunities for investors.
What Is 100x Leverage and How Does It Work?
Simply put, 100x leverage allows you to open larger trading positions with less capital. For example:
Suppose the Bitcoin price is $60,000 that day, and you open a long contract with 1 BTC. After using 100x leverage, the transaction amount is equivalent to 100 BTC.
One day later, if the price rises to $63,000, your profit will be (63,000 – 60,000) * 100 BTC / 60,000 = 5 BTC, a yield of up to 500%.
With BexBack’s deposit bonus
BexBack offers a 100% deposit bonus. If the initial investment is 2 BTC, the profit will increase to 10 BTC, and the return on investment will double to 1000%.
Note: Although leveraged trading can magnify profits, you also need to be wary of liquidation risks.
How Does the 100% Deposit Bonus Work? The deposit bonus from BexBack cannot be directly withdrawn but can be used to open larger positions and increase potential profits. Additionally, during significant market fluctuations, the bonus can serve as extra margin, effectively reducing the risk of liquidation.
About BexBack?
BexBack is a leading cryptocurrency derivatives platform that offers 100x leverage on BTC, ETH, ADA, SOL, XRP,and 50+ others futures contracts. It is headquartered in Singapore with offices in Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. It holds a US MSB (Money Services Business) license and is trusted by more than 500,000 traders worldwide. Accepts users from the United States, Canada, and Europe. There are no deposit fees, and traders can get the most thoughtful service, including 24/7 customer support.
Why recommend BexBack?
No KYC Required: Start trading immediately without complex identity verification.
High-Leverage Trading: Offers up to 100x leverage, maximizing investors’ capital efficiency.
Demo Account: Comes with 10 BTC and 1M USDT in virtual funds, ideal for beginners to practice risk-free trading.
Comprehensive Trading Options: Feature-rich trading available via Web and mobile applications.
Convenient Operation: No slippage, no spread, and fast, precise trade execution.
Global User Support: Enjoy 24/7 customer service, no matter where you are.
Lucrative Affiliate Rewards: Earn up to 50% commission, perfect for promoters.
Take Action Now—Don’t Miss Another Opportunity!
If you missed the previous crypto bull run, this could be your chance. With BexBack’s 100x leverage and 100% deposit bonus and $50 bonus for new users (complete one trade within one week of registration), you can be a winner in the new bull run.
Sign up on BexBack now, claim your exclusive bonus and start accumulating more BTC today!
Disclaimer: This content is provided by BexBack.he statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed. Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility. Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.
Legal 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 assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. 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.
In a dramatic parallel, what happened in Canada at the beginning of this week has now been replicated in Australia at the end of the week.
An opposition that a few months ago had looked just possibly on track to dislodge the government, or at least run it close, has bombed spectacularly. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his Queensland seat of Dickson, as did the Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in Canada.
Far from being forced into minority government, as most observers had been expecting, Labor has increased its majority, with a substantial swing towards it.
Its strong victory reflects not just the the voters’ judgement that the Coalition was not ready to govern. It was worse than that. People just didn’t rate the Coalition or its offerings.
Multiple factors played into this debacle for the Coalition.
A first-term government historically gets a chance of a second term.
The Trump factor overshadowed this election. It made people feel it was best to stick with the status quo. People also were very suspicious of Dutton, whom they saw (despite disclaimers) as being too like the hardline US president.
After the last election, Dutton was declared by many to be unelectable, and that proved absolutely to be the case, despite what turned out to be a misleading impression when the polls were so bad for Labor.
Even if they’d had a very good campaign, the Coalition would probably not have had a serious chance of winning this election.
But its campaign was woeful. The nuclear policy was a drag and a distraction. Holding back policy until late was a bad call. When the policies came, they were often thin and badly prepared. The ambitious defence policy had no detail. The gas reservation scheme had belated modelling.
The forced backflip on working from home, and the late decision to offer a tax offset, were other examples of disaster in the campaign.
Dutton must wear the main share of the blame. He kept strategy and tactics close to his chest.
But the performance of the opposition frontbench, with a few exceptions, has been woeful. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor and finance spokeswoman Jane Hume have been no match for their Labor counterparts Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor ran a very disciplined campaign. Albanese himself performed much better than he did in 2022.
Labor was helped by an interest rate cut in February and the prospect of another to come later this month.
Albanese transformed himself, or was transformed, from last year to this year.
The cost of living presented a huge hurdle for Labor, but the government was able to point to relief it had given on energy bills, tax and much else. The Coalition had opposed several of Labor’s measures and was left trying to play catch-up at the end.
The Liberal Party now has an enormous task to rebuild. The “target the suburbs” strategy has failed. At the same time, the old inner-city Liberal heartland is deeply teal territory.
Hume said, in an unfortunately colourful comment, on Friday, “You do not read the entrails until you have gutted the chicken”.
The chicken has now been gutted. There will be a much more bitter post mortem than in 2022. The leadership choices are less than optimal for the party: Angus Taylor? Andrew Hastie? Sussan Ley?
An interesting thought: if Josh Frydenberg had held his seat in 2022, and led the Liberal party to this election, would be result have been better? One thing is clear: Frydenberg took the right decision in not recontesting Kooyong, which teal Monique Ryan has held.
Anyway, who would want to lead the Liberals at this moment?
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.
Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, issued the following statement on World Press Freedom Day:
“In this time of crisis, we must protect what it means to be Canadian. A strong, independent, and free press both defines and defends our values. My new government will protect reliable Canadian public forums, so we can tell our own stories in our own languages.
“Central to this work is strengthening our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, which has stitched this nation together, reporting from Corner Brook to Trois-Rivières to Whitehorse to Comox, bringing Canadians together at critical moments. My new government will also protect and fund more local news, including those with Indigenous perspectives.
“In a sea of foreign media and disinformation, we need Canadian voices more than ever.”
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra
Superior campaigning by the Labor machine, a lift in the personal performance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a woeful campaign by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have seen Labor re-elected for a second term.
Albanese will go down as one of the luckiest Labor leaders in Australian political history. He faced two deeply unpopular and somewhat odd Coalition leaders – Scott Morrison in 2022 and Dutton in 2025 – and edged out both to first win, and now retain, power. Dutton even lost his seat.
Albanese was lucky, too, that the distress and dysfunction evident in the United States in the first 100 days of the Trump administration made voters reluctant to risk a version of that under the Trumpesque Dutton in Australia.
His luck was compounded by the Liberal team’s shocking underperformance, along with that of Dutton personally. Policy reversals, ineffective advertising and an overall lack of focus blighted their campaign from the outset.
In contrast, Labor National Secretary Paul Erickson and key party figures combined to ensure the government got the jump on the Coalition before the election was imminent. This included getting Albanese onto the hustings early in the new year, making policy announcements that demonstrated a commitment to build Australia’s future.
Albanese himself shook off the torpor evident since the failed Voice referendum campaign and presented a more energetic and congenial face to Australians than the awkward and floundering Dutton.
For the first time in many elections, Labor produced memorable, cut-through advertising with its “He cuts. You pay.” ad, designed to persuade voters they would be worse off under the Coalition.
The swing to Labor was a big turnaround in the fortunes of a party that only months ago looked at risk of struggling to achieve even minority government. As in last month’s Canadian election, the long shadow of Donald Trump helped secure victory for an incumbent government against a Trumpesque opposition.
Dutton flip-flopped under pressure between masking his usual right-wing approach and reverting to type with hardline positions of limited appeal to swinging voters. The more Australians saw of him during the campaign, the worse his net approval rating became.
The Coalition’s election postmortem is likely to hinge on the mystery of why, given the scores of interest rate rises since the previous election and misery experienced by so many Australians as a result, it did not simply hammer the cost of living as its return ticket to power.
It should also dwell on the lesson that a leader and policies that please local oligarchs and right-wing media echo chambers make winning the centre ground needed for election victory in Australia hard.
That one-third of Australians gave an independent or minor party candidate their first preference vote should be the focus of serious contemplation by the major parties, even by Labor in victory.
The crossbench will remain sizeable in the 150-member House of Representatives, though without the balance of power eagerly sought by the teal and orange independents. The Senate will continue to be a challenge for the government to get its bills through.
One clear message is that voters aren’t impressed by the leaders the major parties are offering.
Albanese campaigned well, and got better as the election went on. However, like Dutton, he remained in net negative approval territory. In the final Newspoll of the campaign, published on election day, Albanese and Dutton had –10% and –27% net approval ratings, respectively. Both leaders were a drag on their party’s vote.
Labor’s low primary, but emphatic two party-preferred vote signals Australians want it in office but expect more than tinkering around the edges. The Albanese government will be expected to come up with structural solutions that meet contemporary Australians’ real needs in this second term.
With his re-election as prime minister, Albanese can be confident and secure in his governing style, giving talented frontbenchers more scope to develop the deeper policy solutions Australians seek.
That increased security will also enable him to drop the petty persecution of rivals that gives voters an insight into the lesser side of the sunny personality he publicly presents.
Whether he does either of those things will remain to be seen.
Labor MPs will also have to play their role properly in this term of government.
Slavish quiescence to an all-powerful prime minister produces paltry results. Caucus needs to get elbows up with the re-elected Albanese and make sure he doesn’t clock off between elections like he appeared to at times last time around.
Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
