The High Court has struck down the Albanese government’s law enabling it to impose ankle bracelets and curfews on the more than 200 non-citizens it released from immigration detention in 2023 after an earlier decision by the court.
Wednesday’s decision, by a five-two majority, found the measures “punitive” and an infringement of the constitution.
The plaintiff in the case was a stateless Eritrean who was released from immigration detention last November. He was later charged with six offences for failing to comply with his monitoring and curfew conditions. The charges are pending in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. His earlier criminal record includes a 2017 conviction for offences of burglary and causing injury.
Legislation for the measures was rushed through parliament a year ago, in response to the release of the detainees, many of whom had serious criminal records, including for murder, rape and assault.
During consideration of the bill, the opposition forced the government to toughen it – from providing for the measures only where needed for community safety, to saying the minister must act unless satisfied the person did not pose a risk.
At the time constitutional experts such as Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney,nas well as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills expressed doubts about the legislation.
Twomey wrote: “the effects of the political bidding war to be seen as the ‘toughest’ and most punitive towards non-citizens will make it infinitely harder for Commonwealth lawyers to defend these measures in the courts”.
The opposition said in a statement the effect of the court decision would be that “215 dangerous non-citizen offenders including 12 murderers, 66 sex offenders, 97 people convicted of assault, 15 domestic violence perpetrators and others will be free in the community without any monitoring or curfews”.
It said since being released, 65 of these people had been charged with new state or territory offences, with 45 remaining free in the community.
The government should immediately bring in fresh legislation to deal with the situation, the opposition said.
Surprisingly, the opposition did not ask the government in the House of Representatives question time what it planned to do.
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.
As voting booths in the United States close and the results of the presidential election trickle in, tech billionaire Elon Musk has been posting a flurry of tweets on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). So too has Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
At first glance these tweets might appear chaotic and random. But if you take a closer look, you start to see an alarming strategy behind them – one that’s worth paying very close attention to in order to understand the inner workings of the campaign to return Trump to the White House.
The strategy has two immediate aims. First, to overwhelm the information space and thereby manage attention. Second, to fuel the conspiracy theory that there is a coordinated campaign among Democrats, the media and big tech to steal this election.
But it’s important to understand that the strategy on X is part of a master strategy of Trump’s campaign: a backup plan in case of a Trump loss, designed to encourage the public to participate in a grand re-wiring of reality via the meta-narrative of widespread voter fraud.
Overwhelm the information space
Musk has long been a prominent user of X, even before he became the owner, chief technology officer and executive chairman of the platform.
But as I reported last week, since he endorsed Trump in July, engagement with his account has seen a sudden and anomalously large increase, raising suspicions as to whether he has tweaked the platform’s algorithms so his content reaches more people.
This trend has continued in recent days.
As well as posting on X, earlier today Musk also held a “freeform” live discussion on the platform about the election. It lasted for nearly one and a half hours. Around 1.3 million people tuned in. This is one of many live discussions he has hosted about the election over the past months, including notably with Trump.
In an information war, everything is about attention management. Platforms are designed to maximise engagement and user attention above and beyond anything else. This core logic of social media is highly exploitable: who controls attention controls the narrative. In Australia, the “Vote No” campaign during last year’s referendum on Indigenous representation in government was a masterclass in attention management.
By bombarding audiences, journalists, and other key stakeholders with a constant supply of allegations, rumours, conspiracy theories and unverifiable claims, Musk and the Trump campaign eat up all the oxygen of attention. When everyone is focussed on you and what you’re saying, they are distracted from what the other side is saying.
And Musk and Trump want people to focus on the idea that the election is going to be stolen.
Fuel the election fraud narrative
From the beginning of the year, the narrative that the US presidential election is at risk of being defrauded has been steadily gaining steam. But in the past week leading up to election day, it has gone gangbusters.
For example, starting on October 27, Trump started posting on X using the #TooBigtoRig hashtag. This refers to the idea that Trump will win the election by such a large margin that the result will be incontestable. Up to this point, the #TooBigToRig campaign was driven by Trump supporters. Now, Trump has officially joined – giving it the ultimate legitimacy.
There has also been a dramatic spike over the last week in posts using similarly themed hashtags such as #ElectionFraud, #ElectionInterference, #VoterFraud and #StopTheSteal.
Musk himself hasn’t been using these hashtags very much (although replies to him from other users are riddled with them). But he has been posting material that aligns with them. For example, earlier today he retweeted a post which claimed the electronic voting system in the US was insecure. Musk added: “Absolutely”.
And as some early results have started trickling in, Musk has posted about Trump’s odds of winning being nearly 70%.
“The prophecy has been fulfilled,” Musk wrote.
Participatory disinformation
In many ways this has all the hallmarks of participatory disinformation. This concept, developed by computer scientist Kate Starbird and colleagues, explains how both ordinary people as well as politicians and influential actors become active participants in spreading false narratives.
Unlike the top-down model of propaganda, participatory disinformation describes how grassroots activists and regular people – often with strong convictions and genuine intentions – contribute to spreading and evolving narratives that are not grounded in facts. It is a collaborative feedback loop involving both elite framing of issues and collective sensemaking and “evidence” gathering.
Before war breaks out, there are clear signs of what’s about to unfold, even if a country publicly denies they are preparing for battle. Blood supplies, troops and weaponry are transported to the border in preparation for an invasion.
The same thing is at play here, except the weapon is us.
The flood of tweets by Musk and Trump, in particular, is setting the stage for a full-blown participatory disinformation campaign to undermine the election results.
Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for his Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, ‘Combatting Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Social Media’. He also receives ARC funding for the Discovery Project, ‘Understanding and combatting “Dark Political Communication”‘ (2024–2027).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehak Oberai, Senior Research Assistant, Ethos Project, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University
Parts of Australia are currently facing extreme heat, with high temperatures set to continue over the coming days.
Though it’s unclear exactly what the upcoming summer will bring, climate change means Australian summers are getting hotter. Even this year in August we saw temperatures around 40°C in parts of the country.
Heatwaves aren’t just uncomfortable – they can be deadly. Health emergencies related to extreme heat place significant strain on our health-care systems, with data showing increased ambulance callouts and hospital presentations during these periods.
Although heatwaves can affect everyone, older adults are particularly at risk. But our new research has found older Queenslanders don’t necessarily believe heat poses a risk to their health. And this affects how they respond to emergency warnings.
Older people and the heat
Ageing brings physiological changes, including reduced ability to regulate body temperature, which can put older people at increased risk of issues such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.
Heat exposure can also worsen the symptoms of existing conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease or kidney disease, which are more common in older people.
The risk is even more pronounced for older people who live in poor quality housing, are economically disadvantaged, or are socially isolated.
As we’ve learned more about the risks of heatwaves, there’s been an increased focus on developing population-based early warning systems. These systems play a crucial role in encouraging people to adopt heat-protective behaviours such as staying hydrated, avoiding strenuous physical activity when temperatures are high, and wearing loose or light clothing.
Queensland is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to heatwaves. Since 2015, heatwave warnings have been part of the state’s heatwave subplan, which sets out strategies for managing and mitigating the impacts of extreme heat events.
These warnings involve alerts about upcoming high temperatures, and advice on staying cool. They come as notifications through the Bureau of Meterology’s weather app or via media outlets or social media. However, it’s not clear whether these warnings are reaching those most at risk.
As part of a broader project on extreme heat and older people, we surveyed 547 Queenslanders aged 65 and over to understand their perceptions of heat risks and to determine if heatwave warnings were reaching them.
We also wanted to know what factors influence how they receive and respond to these warnings, with a view to understanding how we can improve heatwave warnings for this group.
What we found
Only 25% of respondents were aware of the potential consequences of heatwaves on their health. The majority of participants (80%) perceived themselves to be at lower risk compared to others of their age group. This aligns with previous heat-health research which has similarly found older adults often don’t perceive heat as a personal risk.
While most of the sample (87%) reported having one or more chronic health conditions, 30% were unaware having a chronic health condition increased their vulnerability to heatwaves.
Several cultural and personal factors may explain why older people don’t think heat poses a danger to them. In Australia, heat is typically seen as a normal and even positive part of life. Heat risk messages are often less urgent than warnings for other natural disasters.
Previous research has also shown older people tend not to think heat poses a risk to their health. Miguel AF/Shutterstock
We also found nearly half of respondents had not heard a heatwave warning. Of those who had, roughly half took actions to keep themselves cool.
What stood out from our analysis was that participants’ awareness and actions in response to heatwave warnings were significantly influenced by their knowledge and perceptions of heat risks. Factors such as age, gender and education were not so important.
Respondents who believed they were at risk were almost twice as likely to hear the warnings, and 3.6 times more likely to take heat protective actions.
One limitation of our research is that we conducted the survey in 2022 during and following a La Nina period, where temperatures are usually lower. So there may have been fewer heatwave warnings throughout the season, potentially reducing participants’ perceptions of heat health risks.
What needs to change?
With another hot summer likely ahead, we need to rethink how we communicate about heatwaves. These are more than just hot days. We need to recognise heatwaves as a serious health risk, especially for older people, and effectively communicate that risk to the public.
This might include using primary health-care professionals such as GPs, nurses and pharmacists to share heat-health information with older patients and their family members, or developing personalised heat action plans for the summer period.
Text message alerts from the Bureau of Meteorology, along with app notifications, could be a good idea considering some older adults may not have a smartphone or be open to using apps.
To improve heatwave communication, we also need to explore the barriers and facilitators to heat protective behaviours. This includes considering structural factors (such as housing design), environmental factors (for example, access to shade and cool refuges), individual factors (such as financial constraints or health conditions) and social factors (such as access to family and community support).
Strengthening communication around heatwaves and health will not only protect individual wellbeing but enhance community resilience as extreme heat continues to affect our lives.
Mehak Oberai is a Senior Research Assistant working on Ethos project and is also a member of the AAG (Australian Association of Gerontology) Student & Early Career Working Group.
Ella Jackman is a PhD Candidate at Griffith University and a Research Assistant for the Queensland Heat Health Community of Practice (QHHCoP) and the Ethos Project.
Shannon Rutherford co-leads the Climate Action Beacon Griffith University funded, Queensland Heat Health Community of Practice and receives funding from Wellcome and NEMA. She is an affiliate member of the HEAL network
Steven Baker and Zhiwei Xu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Spain is still reeling from recent floods in the Valencia region. In some areas, a year’s worth of rain fell in a single day. Sudden torrents raced through towns and cities. Over 200 people are dead. Rapid analysis suggests daily rainfall extremes in this region and season have become twice as common over the last 75 years and become 12% more intense.
The World Meteorological Organisation has pointed out that climate change is steadily increasing the risk of extreme floods like these. Warmer air can hold more water vapour, about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. More moisture generally leads to more intense rainfall, and therefore more extreme floods.
The physics of how temperature influences the atmosphere’s capacity to hold moisture has been known for close to 200 years. But we’ve learned something worrying more recently. When water vapour condenses to form rain droplets, it releases heat which can fuel stronger convection and boost updrafts of air currents in storms. This means the intensity of extreme rainfall could increase not just 7% per degree of warming, but over twice that rate.
Last week, CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released their biennial report on the State of the Climate, which found “heavy short-term rainfall events are becoming more intense”. Australia, the report states, has already warmed 1.5°C since national records began in 1910. In recent years, extreme rains have triggered devastating floods in New South Wales and Queensland.
The question now is – are we prepared for these more damaging floods? This year, Australia updated the climate change section of Australia’s flood design guidance. But while this will help ensure that future infrastructure is better able to weather extreme floods, our current bridges, roads and stormwater drains have not been built to weather these increases in extreme rainfall. Similarly, our flood planning levels – used to determine where houses, offices, hospitals and so forth can be built – have generally not factored in the reality of the threat.
More floods and more extreme
Many of us would have learned about the water cycle in school. Water evaporates from seas and lakes before falling as rain and filling lakes and rivers, which eventually makes it back to the sea.
Unfortunately, climate change is making this cycle more intense, as detailed in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Rain is more likely to fall in intense short-duration bursts which are more likely to trigger floods.
This year alone, we have seen disastrous and deadly floods from extreme storms across the Americas, Asia and Europe. Scientific analysis has showed these floods were more severe due to human-caused climate change.
Australia is not immune. The devastating northern New South Wales floods of 2022 took 24 lives and ravaged towns such as Lismore. These floods are the most expensive natural disaster to date in Australia, costing A$5.65 billion in damages.
How do you prepare for worse floods?
When urban planners set flood planning levels, or engineers begin designing a new bridge or rail line, they have to take floods into account. To do so, they will inevitably reach for the local bible, Australia’s flood design guidance.
Before 2024, this document allowed for a 5% increase in rainfall intensity per degree of global warming, and generally applied it only to infrastructure intended for a very long lifespan. This clashed with most scientific studies on the topic both globally and in Australia, which showed much greater increases, and that these increases are already being witnessed.
To provide better flood guidance, we and our colleagues undertook a comprehensive review of over 300 scientific papers covering climate change in Australia and extreme rainfall.
The review proved we had been underestimating the threat of extreme rains and subsequent floods. Rain events over a 24-hour period leading to flooding are likely to increase at 8% per degree of warming, not 5%. Hourly rainfall extremes are likely increasing even faster, at 15% per degree.
Worse, these are just the central estimates. The wide range of plausible values suggests some rain events could eclipse these. For daily or longer extreme rains, the range is 2–15%. For hourly or shorter periods, that figure is 7–28% for hourly or shorter duration.
Over the month of February in 2022, the Lismore region had about 600–800 mm of rain – much more than a normal February, which might see closer to 150 mm on average. These floods took place with just 1.1°C of warming since the pre-industrial period. On our current path, it’s possible the world could warm another 1.5°C or more by the end of this century. If this happens, these rainfall totals could be substantially higher and more likely to cause even worse flood impacts.
These new figures have now been included in the August update of Australia’s flood design guidance. This is good news. It means future decisions on infrastructure and planning can now be well informed by the latest science on how climate change influences flood risk.
Over time, this will ensure essential infrastructure can be built to endure worse floods. It will affect the design and construction of everything from local stormwater drains to levees, bridges, culverts and dam spillways.
Preparing for extreme floods is complex. Pictured: water spilling out from a manhole during Spain’s floods. Fernando Astasio Avila/Shutterstock
Local councils can use it to set the height of floor levels for property development. State and federal decision-makers can use it in planning for responses to flood emergencies.
Does it mean we can avoid disastrous floods like those in Spain and Lismore? Yes and no. We now have the knowledge and tools to adapt to the increased risk levels already arriving. Yet implementing this will be challenging. In many cases, it will require retrofitting or redesigning existing infrastructure to withstand more intense flooding.
Climate change is no longer something we can file under “problem for the future”. It’s here already. The flood risks we face today are already substantially worse than 25 years ago, and will continue to worsen. We must accelerate how we plan for extreme, rapid rainfall creating catastrophic floods like those in Spain.
Conrad Wasko receives funding from The University of Sydney and the Australian Research Council. Conrad has previously received funding from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Andrew Dowdy receives funding from University of Melbourne, including through the Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and the Melbourne Energy Institute.
Seth Westra is a Professor of Hydrology and Climate Risk at the University of Adelaide, Director of Research for the One Basin Cooperative Research Centre, and Chair of the Systems Cooperative. Seth receives funding from state and federal governments support decision making under hydrological or climatic uncertainty.
The leading Cook Islands environmental lobby group says that if Donald Trump wins the United States elections — and he seemed to be on target to succeed as results were rolling in tonight — he will push back on climate change negotiations made since he was last in office.
As voters in the US cast their votes on who would be the next president, Trump or US Vice-President Kamala Harris, the question for most Pacific Islands countries is what this will mean for them?
“If Trump wins, it will push back on any progress that has been made in the climate change negotiations since he was last in office,” said Te Ipukarea Society’s Kelvin Passfield.
“It won’t be good for the Pacific Islands in terms of US support for climate change. We have not heard too much on Kamala Harris’s climate policy, but she would have to be better than Trump.”
The current President Joe Biden and his administration made some efforts to connect with Pacific leaders.
Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies senior lecturer Dr Anna Powles said a potential win for Harris could be the fulfilment of the many “promises” made to the Pacific for climate financing, uplifting economies of the Pacific and bolstering defence security.
Dr Powles said Pacific leaders want Harris to deliver on the Pacific Partnership Strategy, the outcomes of the two Pacific Islands-US summits in 2022 and 2023, and the many diplomatic visits undertaken during President Biden’s presidency.
Diplomatic relationships The Biden administration recognised Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign and independent states and established diplomatic relationships with them.
The Biden-Harris government had pledged to boost funding to the Green Climate Fund by US$3 billion at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates.
Harris has said in the past that climate change is an existential threat and has also promised to “tackle the climate crisis with bold action, build a clean energy economy, advance environmental justice, and increase resilience to climate disasters”.
Dr Powles said that delivery needed to be the focus.
She said the US Elections would no doubt have an impact on small island nations facing climate change and intensified geopolitics.
Dr Powles said it came as “no surprise” that countries such as New Zealand and Australia had increasingly aligned with the US, as the Biden administration had been leveraging strategic partnerships with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan since 2018.
She said a return to Trump’s leadership could derail ongoing efforts to build security architecture in the Pacific.
Pull back from Pacific There are also views that Trump would pull back from the Pacific and focus on internal matters, directly impacting his nation.
For Trump, there is no mention of the climate crisis in his platform or Agenda47.
This is in line with the former president’s past actions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2019, citing “unfair economic burdens” placed on American workers and businesses.
Trump has maintained his position that the climate crisis is “one of the great scams of all time”.
Republished with permission from the Cook Islands News and RNZ Pacific.
The High Court has struck down the Albanese government’s law enabling it to impose ankle bracelets and curfews on the more than 200 non-citizens it released from immigration detention in 2023 after an earlier decision by the court.
Wednesday’s decision, by a five-two majority, found the measures “punitive” and an infringement of the constitution.
The plaintiff in the case was a stateless Eritrean who was released from immigration detention last November. He was later charged with six offences for failing to comply with his monitoring and curfew conditions. The charges are pending in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. His earlier criminal record includes a 2017 conviction for offences of burglary and causing injury.
Legislation for the measures was rushed through parliament a year ago, in response to the release of the detainees, many of whom had serious criminal records, including for murder, rape and assault.
During consideration of the bill, the opposition forced the government to toughen it – from providing for the measures only where needed for community safety, to saying the minister must act unless satisfied the person did not pose a risk.
At the time constitutional experts such as Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney,nas well as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills expressed doubts about the legislation.
Twomey wrote: “the effects of the political bidding war to be seen as the ‘toughest’ and most punitive towards non-citizens will make it infinitely harder for Commonwealth lawyers to defend these measures in the courts”.
The opposition said in a statement the effect of the court decision would be that “215 dangerous non-citizen offenders including 12 murderers, 66 sex offenders, 97 people convicted of assault, 15 domestic violence perpetrators and others will be free in the community without any monitoring or curfews”.
It said since being released, 65 of these people had been charged with new state or territory offences, with 45 remaining free in the community.
Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said regulations were being finalised for “an adjusted process” for electronic monitoring and curfews. “I will sign off on these regulations later today.”
Burke said that on Thursday he would introduce new legislation to support the regulations. That legislation would also strengthen the government’s power to remove to third countries people whose visas had been cancelled.
“The court decision is not the one the government wanted – but it is one the government has prepared for,” Burke said.
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.
Trust in politicians is at an all-time low, not only in Australia but across the world. Now more than ever, people are demanding a higher standard for our elected officials.
The row over flight upgrades and the Qantas lounge has reinforced distrust.
So has the strong criticism of the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Paul Brereton, in his conduct over referrals from the Robodebt royal commission. The Inspector of the NACC found Brereton, who had a conflict of interest because he knew one of the people, had not properly recused himself from the consideration of whether the NACC should investigate the referrals.
Independent MP Helen Haines, who holds the Victorian seat of Indi, has long focused on integrity issues, and she joined us on the podcast.
Haines, who is deputy chair of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the NACC, says the new body – which she strongly believes is surrounded by too much secrecy – has not started well:
We are just over one year in, but I’d have to say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission has got off to a disappointing start, given the Robodebt incident and the subsequent inquiry by the Inspector.
The [parliamentary] oversight committee will have the opportunity very soon – in a public hearing on the 22nd of November, when the Commissioner comes before us in regard to the annual report of the NACC – to ask him questions. And I certainly will be giving full consideration to what line of questioning needs to happen in that committee in order to unpack the events of the past year.
Will that committee make a decision on whether Commissioner Brereton should be asked to resign?
I think what happens next will be determined by what the committee unpacks in that public hearing. But I think, to be clear, that under the legislation, our committee has powers to review the performance of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners. So that’s what we’ll be doing.
On grant programs, Haines says the Albanese government is pork barrelling, just as the Coalition did:
It’s a really strong example of the two major parties and the duopoly they hold. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work. But there are ways that we can remedy this. I’ve put forward twice in the parliament now a piece of private member’s legislation that would bring an end to pork barrelling. It would mean that eligibility criteria and guidelines by legislation must be published before grant moneys are allocated.
It would re-institute parliamentary oversight of these grant programs. And it would make sure that in circumstances where the department had recommended particular projects but a minister wished to make a different decision to override that, which may be quite legitimate, but that the minister would need to come into the House and explain that.
When she is reminded one argument for a vote for an independent in her seat of Indi, when her predecessor Cathy McGowan ran, had been to make it more competitive in attracting promises, she says:
Now I think that’s regrettable. I think, though, it’s a symptom of the cynicism that everyday citizens feel when the major parties have what they consider safe seats and what they consider marginal seats.
I think that what I’ve learnt as a member of parliament is that we never fix the system if we remain that cynical. I think we need to say, what’s the problem here? The problem is that the major parties are using taxpayer dollars for political purposes and that, yes, you can feel angry, disappointed and, in fact, so cynical that you take the approaches, as we did in Indi, to say, well, we need to change our representation.
I’m saying it’s no wonder people buy into that when there’s no remedy. I want to see a remedy.
On her decision to this week to cancel her membership of the Qantas chairman’s lounge and its Virgin equivalent:
For me, the potential or perceived conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest that may arise from holding such a membership when I’m a legislator is a risk that I’m not willing to take now.
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.
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
Donald Trump is set to accomplish the rare feat of winning the US presidential election after losing an earlier one.
The New York Times Needle gives Trump a 95% chance to win the Electoral College. He’s estimated to have won Georgia (16 electoral votes) by 2.5% over Democrat Kamala Harris and North Carolina (16) by 3.3%.
Other key states have not yet been called, but Trump has an 85% probability of winning Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), a 71% chance to win Michigan (15), a 79% chance to win Wisconsin (ten) and an 83% chance to win Arizona (11). There are still no results from Nevada (six).
The needle’s popular vote projection also favours Trump by 1.2%. If Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College, it will be the first time Republicans have won both since 2004. In 2000 and 2016, Republicans won the Electoral College but not the popular vote.
The main reasons for Trump’s victory were Joe Biden’s unpopularity, the US economy being only just above average, and record illegal immigration during Biden’s term. I’ve mentioned all these factors in my previous US election articles.
Abortion was not the vote-shifter Democrats expected. In lower-turnout elections such as the 2022 midterms and byelections, Democrats have performed well owing to voters motivated by abortion. But in this high-turnout presidential election, abortion was marginalised.
Polls understated Trump across the board, though they were not as bad as they were in 2020. Using Nate Silver’s aggregate of final polls, Trump outperformed his polls in the seven key states by two to three points. This is the third successive time that polls have underestimated Trump.
In the past, the Selzer Iowa poll has had outlier results that turned out to be accurate. This time the final Selzer poll gave Harris a three-point lead in Iowa, but Trump will win by 13 points according to the needle’s forecast.
Barack Obama won Florida in both 2008 and 2012, and Trump won it by one to three points in both 2016 and 2020. This year, Trump won Florida by 56–43. He won the heavily Hispanic Miami-Dade county by 55–44. At the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton had defeated Trump in Miami-Dade by 63–34.
In some states that have nearly finished counting, such as Kentucky, there were swings across the board to Trump compared with 2020. It wasn’t just a rural swing to Trump as there were also swings in urban counties.
The New York Times said Trump had gained nine to ten points since 2020 in New York, New Jersey and Florida, all racially diverse states.
The only comfort for Democrats from this election is that the gap between the popular vote and the Electoral College “tipping point” state has almost disappeared, if the needle is right. Democrats will lose the popular vote by 1.2% but Pennsylvania, the tipping point state, by 2.2%. This will be a gap of 1.0%, down from nearly 3.9% in 2020.
Senate also ugly for Democrats
Democrats and allied independents held a 51–49 Senate majority coming into this election, but they were defending 23 of the 33 regular seats up for election. Senators have six-year terms with two from each of the 50 states.
Republicans have gained the Senate with a 51–42 lead over Democrats, after gaining West Virginia and Ohio from Democrats and defending Florida, Nebraska and Texas. Republicans lead Democrats in four more Senate races, so they could win a 55–45 Senate majority.
All of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years. Republicans currently have a 183–155 lead over Democrats. A majority requires 218 seats.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The mysterious black balls that washed up on Sydney’s beaches in mid-October were likely lumps of “fatberg” containing traces of human faeces, methamphetamine and PFAS, according to a new detailed analysis of their composition.
Initial reports suggested the ominous lumps were probably tar balls from an oil spill. However, analysis with a barrage of scientific tests has revealed a more complicated picture.
The mysterious black balls
On October 16, the first reports emerged from Coogee Beach in Sydney’s east. Lifeguards reported numerous black spheres on the sand that appeared at first glance to be tar-like.
Similar sightings were soon reported at nearby Bondi, Bronte, Tamarama and Maroubra beaches, prompting immediate closures and cleanup efforts. Authorities initially feared these could be toxic “tar balls”, leading to health advisories and public warnings.
Preliminary testing by Randwick Council was consistent with tar balls made up of oil and debris.
Oil – or something more disgusting?
We set out to find out exactly what the black balls were made of and where they came from. We ran a wide range of tests and analyses with colleagues from UNSW in collaboration with the Mark Wainwright Analytical Centre and the the environmental forensics arm of the federal Department of Climate Change, Environment, Energy and Water (DCCEEW). We also collaborated with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and Randwick Council.
Initial testing, based primarily on results from a technique called solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, suggested the material resembled unrefined oil. However, further testing indicated a different, more disgusting, composition.
A cross section of one of the balls, showing its sandy coating and surface, some fibres, and the core. Jake Ireland, CC BY
Analysing the elements involved revealed the black goop was mostly carbon. Radiocarbon dating then showed only about 30% of the carbon had a fossil origin, suggesting fossil fuels were not the major component of the balls.
We also identified significant levels of calcium, and much smaller amounts of various metals. Spectroscopic tests showed signatures in the black balls matching fats, oils and greasy molecules often found in soap scum, cooking oil and food sources. This pointed to human waste.
PFAS, drugs and signs of faeces
The next step was to see if we could dissolve the substance in organic solvents. Only about one-third to one-half of the mass dissolved this way.
We were able to take a closer look at the dissolved part using a technique called mass spectrometry, which identifies molecules by their weight and electric charge. This revealed molecules found in vehicle-grade fuels as well as organic molecules such as fatty acids and glycerides.
We also identified industrial perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS or “forever chemicals”), steroidal compounds such as norgestrel, antihypertensive medications such as losartan, pesticides, and veterinary drugs. This is consistent with contamination from sewage and industrial runoff.
The crushed up interior of one ball, ready for testing. Jon Beves, CC BY
There were also signs of human faecal waste, including a cholesterol byproduct called epicoprostanol and residues of recreational drugs including tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC, a compound found in the cannabis plant) and methamphetamine. This is consistent with contributions from domestic waste.
Analysing the part of the mass that we couldn’t dissolve proved more challenging. Here we tried solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance and a method called Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, which uses infrared light to detect chemicals. The results suggested the presence of fats, but they were not definitive.
Were the blobs lumps of fatberg?
So what does all this mean? The high levels of fats, oils, greasy molecules and calcium, along with the low solubility, are consistent with a “fatberg”: a congealed mass of fats, oils and greasy molecules that can accumulate in sewage.
The detection of markers of human fecal matter, medication and recreational drugs suggest the origin may be sewage or other urban effluent. However, while the composition of these black balls suggests they may be similar to fatbergs, we cannot definitively confirm their exact origin.
The black ball incident does highlight the broader issue of pollution along Sydney’s coastline.
Recent reports indicate about 28% of monitored swimming sites in New South Wales are prone to pollution. Many receive poor water quality ratings, especially after rain. Beaches such as Gymea Bay, Coogee Beach, Malabar Beach, and Frenchmans Bay have been identified as areas of concern, with advisories against swimming due to contamination from human faecal matter.
Urban waste pollution
Analysing and understanding urban waste pollution is not an easy task. It requires a multi-disciplinary approach.
To unravel the complex composition of the blobs, we used carbon-14 dating, mass spectrometry, elemental analysis and microscopy techniques.
Even after all we did, we cannot yet draw definitive conclusions regarding the primary source of the blobs. This uncertainty reflects the broader challenges faced by scientists and environmental agencies in tracking and addressing pollution in coastal areas.
This incident underscores the importance of thorough scientific analysis in understanding environmental issues. By continuing to investigate the sources and composition of such pollutants, we can learn more about how urban waste management affects the health of our coasts.
This research was led by UNSW researchers, including Associate Professor Jon Beves, Dr Tim Barrows, Dr Martin Bucknall, Professor William Alexander Donald, Dr Albert Fahrenbach, Dr Sarah Hancock, Dr Christopher Hansen, Ms Lisa Hua, Dr Martina Lessio, Dr Chris Marjo, Associate Professor Vinh Nguyen, Dr Martin Peeks, Dr Aditya Rawal, Dr Chowdhury Sarowar, Professor Timothy Schmidt, Dr Jake Violi and Dr Helen Wang.
Jon Beves receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. He is affiliated with The Greens.
William Alexander Donald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Institutes of Health, iCare Dust Diseases Care, Coal Services NSW Health and Safety Trust, as well as industry-funded research contracts.
For Doddy Morris, a journalist with the Vanuatu Daily Post, the 7.3 magnitude earthquake that struck Vanuatu last month on December 17, 2024, was more than just a story — it was a personal tragedy.
Amid the chaos, Morris learned his brother, an Anglican priest, had died.
“My mom called me crying and asked, ‘Did your brother die?’. I wasn’t sure and told her I was heading to Vila Central Hospital right away,” he recalled.
Morris arrived at the hospital to confirm the worst. “My heart sank when I confirmed that my brother had indeed passed away. At that moment, I forgot about my job.”
Doddy’s brother’s coffin . . . Doddy bids him farewell before the casket is flown to their home island. Image: Doddy Morris The New Atoll
Despite his grief, Morris joined his remaining brothers at the hospital mortuary that night, staying by their deceased sibling’s side and mourning together. “We were the only ones there. We spent the whole night drinking kava outside while he lay in the cool room,” he said.
The quake — which claimed 14 lives, injured more than 265 people, and displaced more than 1000 — left an indelible mark on Port Vila and its residents. Infrastructure damage was extensive, with schools, homes, and water reserves destroyed, and the Central Business District (CBD) heavily impacted.
In the days following the earthquake, Morris returned to his role as a reporter, capturing the unfolding crisis despite the emotional toll. “When the earthquake struck, I thought I was going to die myself,” he said. Yet, minutes after the tremor subsided, he grabbed his camera and rushed to the CBD.
At the heart of the destruction, he witnessed harrowing scenes. “I was shocked to see the collapsed Billabong building. A body lay covered with a blue tarpaulin, and Pro Rescue teams were trying to save others who were trapped inside,” Morris recounted.
The lack of a network connection frustrated his efforts to report live, but he pressed on, documenting the damage.
A month after the disaster, Morris continues to cover the aftermath as Vanuatu transitions from emergency response to recovery. “A month has passed since the earthquake, but the memories remain fresh. We don’t know when Port Vila will return to normal,” he said.
His photojournalism has been demonstrating the true impact of the earthquake as he continues to capture the mourning of a nation after such a tragic event.
Doddy Morris’ photojournalism . . . demonstrating the true impact of the earthquake as he continues to capture the mourning of a nation after such a tragic event. Image: Vanuatu Daily Post/The New Atoll
The earthquake left deep scars, not only on the nation’s infrastructure but also on its people. “Unlike cyclones, which we can predict, prepare for, and survive, earthquakes strike without warning and show no mercy,” Morris said.
Through grief and uncertainty, Morris remains committed to his work, documenting the resilience of his community and the challenges they face as they rebuild. His reporting serves as a testament to the strength of both the people of Vanuatu and a journalist who continues to bear witness, even in the face of personal loss.
Journalist Doddy Morris . . . reporting on the traumatic events of the earthquake meant confronting his own grief while documenting the grief of others. Image: The New Atoll
Reporting on his own community while grappling with personal loss is a reality for many Pacific Island journalists who cover disasters. For Doddy Morris, reporting on the traumatic events of the earthquake meant confronting his own grief while documenting the grief of others.
Dr Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson is a Pacific journalism trainer with the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. She expresses her support for Morris and his colleagues in showing “extraordinary courage and resilience”. This article was first published by The New Atoll and is republished with permission.
Just one day after President Prabowo Subianto’s inauguration, a minister announced plans to resume the transmigration programme in eastern Indonesia, particularly in Papua, saying it was needed for enhancing unity and providing locals with welfare.
Transmigration is the process of moving people from densely populated regions to less densely populated ones in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s most populous country with 285 million people.
The ministry intends to revitalise 10 zones in Papua, potentially using local relocation rather than bringing in outsiders.
The programme will resume after it was officially paused in Papua 23 years ago.
“We want Papua to be fully united as part of Indonesia in terms of welfare, national unity and beyond,” Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara, the Minister of Transmigration, said during a handover ceremony on October 21.
Iftitah promised strict evaluations focusing on community welfare rather than on relocation numbers. Despite the minister’s promises, the plan drew an outcry from indigenous Papuans who cited social and economic concerns.
Papua, a remote and resource-rich region, has long been a flashpoint for conflict, with its people enduring decades of military abuse and human rights violations under Indonesian rule.
Human rights abuses Prabowo, a former army general, was accused of human rights abuses in his military career, including in East Timor (Timor-Leste) during a pro-independence insurgency against Jakarta rule.
Simon Balagaize, a young Papuan leader from Merauke, highlighted the negative impacts of transmigration efforts in Papua under dictator Suharto’s New Order during the 1960s.
“Customary land was taken, forests were cut down, and the indigenous Malind people now speak Javanese better than their native language,” he told BenarNews.
The Papuan Church Council stressed that locals desperately needed services, but could do without more transmigration.
“Papuans need education, health services and welfare – not transmigration that only further marginalises landowners,” Reverend Dorman Wandikbo, a member of the council, told BenarNews.
Transmigration into Papua has sparked protests over concerns about reduced job opportunities for indigenous people, along with broader political and economic impacts.
Apei Tarami, who joined a recent demonstration in South Sorong, Southwest Papua province, warned of consequences, stating that “this policy affects both political and economic aspects of Papua.”
We firmly reject Indonesia’s new transmigration policy to relocate Indonesians to West Papua, along with the world’s biggest deforestation project in Merauke, as it threatens the survival of West Papuans.
— Free West Papua Campaign (Nederland) (@FreeWestPapuaNL) November 4, 2024
Human rights ignored Meanwhile, human rights advocate Theo Hasegem criticised the government’s plans, arguing that human rights issues are ignored and non-Papuans could be endangered because pro-independence groups often target newcomers.
“Do the president and vice-president guarantee the safety of those relocated from Java,” Hasegem told BenarNews.
The programme, which dates to 1905, has continued through various administrations under the guise of promoting development and unity.
Indonesia’s policy resumed post-independence on December 12, 1950, under President Sukarno, who sought to foster prosperity and equitable development.
It also aimed to promote social unity by relocating citizens across regions.
Transmigration involving 78,000 families occurred in Papua from 1964 to 1999, according to statistics from the Papua provincial government. That would equal between 312,000 and 390,000 people settling in Papua from other parts of the country, assuming the average Indonesian family has 4 to 5 people.
The programme paused in 2001 after a Special Autonomy Law required regional regulations to be followed.
Students hold a rally at Abepura Circle in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesia’s Papua Province, yesterday to protest against Indonesia’s plan to resume a transmigration programme, Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews
Legality questioned Papuan legislator John N.R. Gobay questioned the role of Papua’s six new autonomous regional governments in the transmigration process. He cited Article 61 of the law, which mandates that transmigration proceed only with gubernatorial consent and regulatory backing.
Without these clear regional regulations, he warned, transmigration lacks a strong legal foundation and could conflict with special autonomy rules.
He also pointed to a 2008 Papuan regulation stating that transmigration should proceed only after the Indigenous Papuan population reaches 20 million. In 2023, the population across six provinces of Papua was about 6.25 million, according to Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS).
Gobay suggested prioritising local transmigration to better support indigenous development in their own region.
‘Entrenched inequality’ British MP Alex Sobel, chair of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua, expressed concern over the programme, noting its role in drastic demographic shifts and structural discrimination in education, land rights and employment.
“Transmigration has entrenched inequality rather than promoting prosperity,” Sobel told BenarNews, adding that it had contributed to Papua remaining Indonesia’s poorest regions.
Pramono Suharjono, who transmigrated to Papua, Indonesia, in 1986, harvests oranges on his land in Arso II in Keerom regency last week. Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews]
Pramono Suharjono, a resident of Arso II in Keerom, Papua, welcomed the idea of restarting the programme, viewing it as positive for the region’s growth.
“This supports national development, not colonisation,” he told BenarNews.
A former transmigrant who has served as a local representative, Pramono said transmigration had increased local knowledge in agriculture, craftsmanship and trade.
However, research has shown that longstanding social issues, including tensions from cultural differences, have marginalised indigenous Papuans and fostered resentment toward non-locals, said La Pona, a lecturer at Cenderawasih University.
Papua also faces a humanitarian crisis because of conflicts between Indonesian forces and pro-independence groups. United Nations data shows between 60,000 and 100,000 Papuans were displaced between and 2022.
As of September 2024, human rights advocates estimate 79,000 Papuans remain displaced even as Indonesia denies UN officials access to the region.
Pizaro Gozali Idrus in Jakarta contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.
The legendary composer, musical arranger and producer Quincy Jones has died at 91.
Over his long career, Jones arranged and produced for a broad range of genres. His work blended the traditions of jazz, popular, world music and Western classical music.
This was perhaps most present in his 1989 album Back on the Block. It features jazz improvisation, Zulu language, gospel and rapping. The album won seven Grammy Awards, including album of the year.
But even more than his own albums, Jones will be familiar to listeners across decades of popular music, for his work as a producer and arranger with legendary artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, Barry White, Chaka Khan, Frank Sinatra and Michael Jackson.
Finding his feet in jazz
Jones was born in Chicago in 1933, right in the middle of the depression. Around 11 years old, Jones found music.
In high school, Jones sang in a capella groups and played in school bands on the trumpet.
By 13, he was beginning to demonstrate a strong musical ability and musicianship skills, writing arrangements for his bands.
When Jones was a teenager, his family moved from Chicago to Seattle. In these early years, Jones had two pivotal mentors. One was the jazz trumpeter Clark Terry; the other was his contemporary and friend Ray Charles.
By the late 1940s, Jones was working as a trumpeter and as composer and arranger for bandleaders such as Dizzy Gillespie and Lionel Hampton.
A jazz big band bandleader in the 1950s, Jones quickly became a sought-after arranger.
Over his career, he worked on numerous jazz recordings with Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Tony Bennett, Sarah Vaughan (including a great swingin’ arrangement of the song Witchcraft), Frank Sinatra (with popular favourites Fly Me To The Moon and Mack the Knife) and the Dinah Washington recording They Didn’t Believe Me with the Quincy Jones Orchestra.
The move into pop
By the 1960s Jones began transitioning into popular music.
In 1961 Jones became the first African American in the position of vice president at a major label, Mercury Records. In 1963 Jones selected and produced Lesley Gore’s hit song It’s My Party from more than 200 demos.
Elements of the previous decades expertise in jazz arranging are apparent with touches of brass and reharmonising (or modifying the harmonic structure – the chords) of a song. Jones’ production approach here was to double-track the melody (duplicating, and placing the second track with a slight delay), enhancing the richness of Gore’s voice.
In 1968, Jones received his first Oscar nomination for Best Original Score for the soundtrack to In Cold Blood. The following year his composing and arranging versatility was demonstrated when he wrote the music for The Italian Job.
In 1979 Jones began working with Michael Jackson on the album Off The Wall.
By the 1980s, Jones was receiving high acclaim and success immersed in many diverse projects including Jackson’s Thriller (1982) and Bad (1987), in which Jones masterfully fuses pop with rhythm and blues, rock and funk.
His innovation in producing was in his broad understanding of multiple genres of music, adoption of technology and his constant musical invention.
‘A great gift’
In 1985 Jones and Michael Omartian were asked to produce the song We Are The World, written by Lionel Richie and Jackson. It was released to worldwide acclaim.
Jones conducted the recording and left a sign on the studio door: “Check your egos at the door”.
Also in 1985, Jones wrote the original score and produced the music for Steven Spielberg’s The Colour Purple, including the song Miss Celie’s Blues, written collaboratively with Jones, Rod Temperton and Richie. The score and Miss Celie’s Blues each received another Oscar nomination for Jones.
Jones was requested on many large projects as a conductor. A great example is Handel’s Messiah: A Soulful Celebration (1992) conducted by Jones. This album featured some of the music industry’s best arrangers Mervyn Warren and Shelton Kilby as well as a stellar list of vocalists such as Gladys Knight, Take 6, Sounds of Blackness, Pattie Austin, Johnny Mathis, Chaka Khan and Al Jarreau.
In an interview with culture journalist David Marchese in 2018, Jones was asked what he was proudest of in his musical career. He told Marchese:
That anything I can feel, I can notate musically. Not many people can do that. I can make a band play like a singer sings. That’s what arranging is, and it’s a great gift.
Beyond his own work as an artist, Jones undertook humanitarian work, mentored new generations of musicians, and was often a commentator on jazz history or the significance of African Americans in the entertainment and recording industry.
Jones’ artistic innovation and highly effective collaborations, spanning a 70-year career, has made an indelible contribution to music and culture globally.
Leigh Carriage 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.
Like most public figures, Kamala Harris adapts her footwear to different occasions. While her wardrobe includes traditional choices such as formal black heels, it was her appearance in Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars on the February 2021 cover of Vogue that drew particular notice.
As Democratic nominee for president, these sneakers once again became a focal point of her campaign.
Through her choice of sneakers, Harris signals a new era in female political leadership – and demonstrates how footwear choices can shape a leader’s identity and ability to connect with voters.
Embracing all-American values
We may know we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but all politicians – especially women – know that we inevitably do. The appearance of others is how we categorise people to make sense of the world and our place in it.
Clothing is a key medium through which we identify ourselves and others. Shoes are particularly layered with meaning: when we observe someone’s footwear we are using them to know whether or not we identify with that person.
This is something that politicians and their teams know and manipulate to win votes.
One famous scene that illustrates this beautifully is Brooklyn Democratic congressman David Norris’s concession speech in the movie The Adjustment Bureau (2011).
Played by Matt Damon, the character reveals the significant work that goes into curating the perfect outfit:
Shiny shoes, we associate with high-priced lawyers and bankers. If you want to get a working man’s vote, you need to scuff up your shoes a little bit, but you can’t scuff them up so much that you alienate the lawyers and the bankers […] So what is the proper scuffing amount? Do you know, we actually paid a consultant $7,300 to tell us that THIS is the perfect amount of scuffing?
While Harris’ Chuck Taylors generally look pristine, she is transparent about her awareness of the style’s significance to potential voters, explaining in a 2020 interview:
Whatever your background or whatever language your grandmother spoke, we all at some point or another had our Chucks, right?
An all-American shoe worn by people of all ages, races, genders and sexualities, the relatively inexpensive and utilitarian Converse All-Star is a social leveller – a smart choice for a politician wishing to identify with a broad electorate.
As others have identified, Harris’ choice of sneakers signals her American values and no-nonsense attitude.
In these shoes, she’s ready for anything.
Shoes change us
Interviewed in 2018, Harris’ relationship with the sneakers goes back several years and certainly appears authentic.
Whether the initial choice to wear them was hers – or, like Norris, that of a team of consultants – is now irrelevant. Through the process of wear, shoes change us.
Not only do they affect how we move through the world physically, but they also shape how we relate to others socially.
Anyone who has selected a particular pair of shoes for an interview or special occasion will be familiar with their transformative effect, one that helps you to feel the part.
Identity can be understood as something that is performed. When a performance is received as convincing, we become the part we are playing and the identity is incorporated into our sense of self.
Harris’ shoes are relatable. In them, she is perceived as – and may therefore feel – approachable and down-to-earth.
On the campaign trail, the social interactions they afford increase her ability to relate to and connect with other people. Through this process, her performance and her identity become one.
One might say she has become her shoes; in doing so, she has come to embody the all-American values they represent. And at only 5 feet 4 ¼ inches, the choice not to compensate for her height with heels exudes a self-assurance more women are discovering.
This woman knows who she is and is reassuringly at ease with herself.
Finding authenticity
Aside from ongoing speculation about Trump’s height and whether he wears elevating insoles, his choice of footwear has attracted comparatively less attention, as is often the case for male politicians.
According to Footwear News, he rarely diverts from black leather dress shoes, signifying his corporate associations. This didn’t stop Trump launching a line of gold sneakers, named “Never Surrender High-Tops” and priced at US$399 in February. A new design, with the words “Fight, fight, fight”, was released after the July assassination attempt.
This represents quite a different use of shoes to connect with voters.
In an era when authenticity in politics is increasingly valued, Harris’ footwear choice represents more than a campaign strategy. It reflects changing expectations around power and leadership.
Her Converse sneakers challenge the notion that women must literally elevate themselves to command authority.
Instead, they suggest a new kind of political performance where power comes not from height or traditional status symbols, but from the ability to connect genuinely with voters.
Alexandra Sherlock 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 Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne
Australians today are more likely than previous generations to live with complex and chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and depression.
This means they’re more likely to need health care from a variety of different providers, such as nurses, podiatrists, psychologists and physiotherapists, as well as GPs. This is known as “multidisciplinary care”. It works best when the skills of all these professions are available to the patient in a co-ordinated way.
But the roles of health professions, and the way they’re funded, have been frozen in legislation and policy for decades. Any change has been incremental and disjointed. It has mostly involved adding more items to the Medicare schedule, with each professional practising separately.
The result has been greater inequity of access. Because fewer than half of allied health fee-for-service visits are bulk-billed, most patients pay almost A$70 for each consultation – and sometimes much more. Those who can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs and can’t find a bulk-billing practitioner miss out.
To assess how the government can remove barriers to team-based care and get health professions working to their full potential, or their full “scope of practice”, last year the government commissioned an independent review.
The final report, released yesterday, sets a new path for the primary care workforce. This could make multidisciplinary care within reach of all Australians.
Using health-care workers’ full potential
The review involved extensive consultation, including on two issues papers. The report itself incorporates feedback from the consultations, including sceptical comments, reflecting a divergence of opinions.
Reflected the report’s title, Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce, its main emphasis is to change the rules and regulations imposed by state and federal governments. These stymie health professionals and limit their ability to use their full skills and knowledge to manage their patients’ care.
Over recent decades, health professionals’ education has improved. So professionals are capable of doing more than previously. Yet the rules and regulations have not advanced and so inhibit professionals from making those skills and knowledge available.
The review argues this contributes to career dissatisfaction, and to people leaving various health professions, exacerbating workforce shortages.
The review proposes a new way of documenting and describing what can be done by a profession through what it calls a National Skills and Capability Framework and Matrix.
As with many other recommendations, the review points to where this is done already internationally and how it can nestle into other policies and frameworks to aid implementation.
To the disappointment of most allied health professions, the review does not recommend more Medicare payments for them to practise independently.
Rather, the review recommends payment to general practices for them to expand multi-disciplinary teams. This would see professionals working together, rather than in competition or isolation.
The review also recommends changing the rules about referrals by health professionals, allowing qualified health professionals to refer directly to non-GP medical specialists in similar areas. This means your psychologist could refer you directly to a psychiatrist if needed, or your physiotherapist could refer you directly to an orthopaedic surgeon rather than needing to go back to your GP.
This will weaken the role of the GP as a “gatekeeper” and also potentially undermine the more holistic care that GPs provide. But from a patient’s point of view, eliminating the intermediate step saves them out-of-pocket costs.
An important recommendation recognises that the health system evolves and rules and regulations need to evolve too. It therefore supplements its recommendations for changes now, with an approach for continuous review through an independent mechanism. This would provide evidence-based advice and recommendations about:
significant workforce innovation
emerging health care roles
workforce models that involve significant change to scope.
When will we see change?
The review sets out a loose timeline for implementation, described as short, medium and long term. And it assigns responsibility for each element of its recommendations to appropriate bodies and governments.
As almost all the recommendations require legislative change, and many require agreement between the Commonwealth and the states, it’s unlikely any of the changes will take effect this financial year.
The review recommends change be implemented in a systematic, evidence-based and safe way. Implementation would start in areas of greatest need such as in rural and remote Australia and also in practices most ready for the change, such as Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisations or Victoria’s Community Health Centres.
In releasing what he referred to as a “landmark” report, Health Minister Mark Butler noted the complexity of implementation, which would require collaborative action with states and territories. He noted the need for further consultation, but nevertheless took a supportive tone.
Can this review prompt real health reform?
Overall, the review charts a middle course between letting health professionals roam free and the tight and inappropriate rules and regulations which constrain patient care today. It also sets out the practical steps to achieve its goals.
The one downside of the report is the emphasis on harmonisation of state and territory approaches. This would replace the current approach, where each state and territory decides, for example, on what vaccines can be administered by which professionals and what pharmacists can dispense without a medical practitioner’s prescription.
One of the benefits of a federation is the potential for state- and territory-based innovation and cross-border learning. Harmonisation will limit that experimenting, and may lead to more of the stasis seen in health workforce policy in the past.
Stephen Duckett was consulted by the Independent Reviewer during the course of the Review and commented on the Review’s Issues Papers and Draft Final Report
As Americans vote in one of the most important presidential elections in generations, the country teeters on a knife edge. In the battleground states that will likely decide the result, the polling margins between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump are razor thin.
These tiny margins, and the general confusion around American politics today, make it impossible to predict the outcome.
The polls might well be wrong: the electorate may have shifted dramatically since 2020 in ways that will only reveal themselves after the election. The reality is we do not know much of anything for sure, and we may never be able to untangle all of the threads that make up the knot of American politics.
After two assassination attempts on Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden’s dramatic decision to leave the race in August, it is entirely possible this election will throw up more big surprises. But as things stand, there are three broad possibilities for what will happen on Election Day.
All of them throw up their own challenges – for the United States, and for the world.
Possibility 1: the return of Trump
Trump may make history and win back the White House. Only Grover Cleveland has managed to get elected a second time as president (in 1892) after suffering a defeat four years earlier.
If Trump does win, it could be via a similar path to the one he took in 2016 – by once again sundering the “blue wall” and winning the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
This feat will likely mean his campaign tactic of mobilising men has worked.
A Trump victory would represent the culmination of a generational project of the American right. A second Trump administration would be very different from the first – the movement behind Trump is more organised, focused and cognisant of the mistakes of the first Trump White House. It would also face considerably weakened democratic guardrails.
The implementation of Trump’s radical agenda, alongside some or all of the broader far-right agenda detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, would radically reshape American life and create political and economic chaos.
The rest of the world would have to reorient itself, once again, around Trump.
Possibility 2: Harris makes history
It is entirely possible Harris makes history – not only by beating Trump, but by becoming the first woman and woman of colour to win the US presidency.
Like Trump, if Harris does win, it will likely be through one or more of the battleground states – in particular, Pennsylvania and Georgia.
For Harris, victory will likely come via high turnout by women and voters of colour, particularly African-Americans, or through a combination of turnout by this core Democratic base and swing voters in key states like Pennsylvania.
How Harris wins – and by how much – will be crucial, both to the immediate aftermath of the election and to the shape of a future Harris administration.
A big question: can she win by enough to head off resistance by Trump and the movement behind him? As Australian writer Don Watson has noted, a Harris victory would likely be taken as an existential defeat by the MAGA movement.
How Trump’s supporters react to such a defeat – and how US institutions react to their reaction – will be a critical test for American democracy.
Possibility 3: too close to call
This brings us to the third possibility: the polls are correct, and it’s such a tight race that the margins in the battleground states are in the thousands of votes, or even less.
If it is that close, counting could take days. And there could be recounts after that.
While conspiracies abound, a delay in the result like this would be an entirely predictable and normal outcome. In the United States, there isn’t one system for counting the votes; elections are run by the states on a county-by-county basis, and each state does it differently.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example, legally can’t start counting mail-in votes until the polls open on Election Day.
Then there is the supposed “blue shift” or “red mirage” that sometimes occurs on election night.
There are now many ways to vote in the US – in person on Election Day, early voting before Election Day or by mail-in ballot. And the time it takes to count these different ballots can vary. So, it may appear as if one candidate is winning early in the night (say, when in-person votes are counted) only for their opponent to slowly turn the tide (when mail-in ballots are counted).
In the 2020 election, this meant early Trump (“red”) leads were gradually lost to the Biden (“blue”) votes. Researchers found that counties won by Biden counted more slowly, on average, than those won by Trump – hence the so-called “blue shift”.
This is an entirely normal – and legal – phenomenon. In Nevada, for instance, state law permits mail-in ballots to be counted four days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.
Trump and his surrogates like Steve Bannon, however, have exploited the differing times it takes to count votes to peddle baseless conspiracy theories, undermining Americans’ faith in their own democracy, and to incite unrest.
By baselessly declaring victory in 2020 on the early “red mirage” tallies in key states before all the votes were counted, Trump was able to create what Bannon described as a “firestorm” – one that eventually led to the insurrection of January 6 2021.
This could very well happen again. Bannon, in fact, has just been released from prison after serving four months for contempt of Congress, and could once again be a driving force in any post-election challenges by the Trump campaign.
Trump, meanwhile, lied again this week when he said “these elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock on Tuesday night” – laying the groundwork for further election conspiracies.
Delays are normal – but fraught
Trump has made it very clear he will not accept another election loss. If he does lose, he or his surrogates will attempt to weaponise similar conspiracy theories again. They may also use legal challenges to vote counts as they did in 2020 – both to contest the result and to once again mobilise the MAGA movement.
In the event of close margins, it’s also possible some states will go to a recount.
There are different rules for this in different states. To take one example, if the margin is within 0.5% in Georgia, a candidate can request a recount.
In the 2020 presidential election, Biden narrowly defeated Trump in Georgia by 0.25%, which triggered a full hand recount of the votes. The Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the state more than two weeks after Election Day. A second recount was later reconfirmed by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Again, this is a normal part of the process. It ensures all votes are counted accurately and the result reflects the democratic will of the American people as best as the (admittedly, deeply flawed) system allows.
Such a delay, legitimate as it would be, would elevate the already very real risk of further political violence and instability in the United States.
None of these outcomes is inevitable. 2024 is not 2020; nor is it 2016. What happens next in America depends on the movement and interplay of so many tangled threads, it is impossible to see where old ones end and new ones might begin.
In all of this, only one thing is certain. Whatever the result – and however long it takes to come through – the divisions and conspiracy theories that have destabilised American politics for so long will not be easily or quickly resolved. That knot may well prove impossible to untangle.
Emma Shortis is Director of the International and Security Affairs program at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.
By Catrin Gardiner, Queensland University of Technology
In the middle of the Pacific, Fiji journalists are transforming their practice, as newsrooms around Suva are requiring journalists to become multimedia creators, shaping stories for the digital age.
A wave of multimedia journalists is surfacing in Fijian journalism culture, fostered during university education, and transitioning seamlessly into the professional field for junior journalists.
University of the South Pacific’s technical editor and digital communication officer Eliki Drugunalevu believes that multimedia journalism is on the rise for two reasons.
“The first is the fact that your phone is pretty much your newsroom on the go.”
With the right guidance and training in using mobile phone apps, “you can pretty much film your story from anywhere”, he says.
The second reason is that reliance on social media platforms gives “rise to mobile journalism and becoming a multimedia journalist”.
Drugunalevu says changes to university journalism curriculum are not “evolving fast enough” with the industry.
Need for ‘parallel learning’ “There needs to be parallel learning between what the industry is going through and what the students are being taught.”
Mobile journalism is growing increasingly around the world. In Fiji this is particularly evident, with large newsrooms entertaining the concept of a single reporter taking on multiple roles.
Fijian Media Association’s vice-president and Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley says one example of the changing landscape is that the Times is now providing all its journalists with mobile phones.
“While there is still a photography department, things are slowly moving towards multimedia journalists.”
Wesley says when no photographers are available to cover a story with a reporter, the journalists create their own images with their mobile phones.
Journalists working in the Fiji Times newsroom, which is among the last few remaining news organisations in Fiji to have a dedicated photography department. Image: Catrin Gardiner, Queensland University of Technology
The Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) also encourages journalists to take part in all types of media including, online, radio, and television, even advertising for multimedia journalists. This highlights the global shift of replacing two-person teams in newsrooms.
Nevertheless, the transition to multimedia journalists is not as positive as commonly thought. Complaints against multimedia journalism come from journalists who receive additional tasks, leading to an increase in workload.
FBC advertises for multimedia journalists, reflecting the new standard in newsrooms. Image: FBC TV/Facebook/QUT
Preference for print Former print journalist turned multimedia journalist at FBC, Litia Cava says she prefers focusing on just print.
She worked a lot less when she was just working in a newspaper, she says.
“When I worked for the paper, I would start at one,” she says. “But here I start working when I walk in.”
Executives at major Fijian news companies, such as Fiji TV’s director of news, current affairs and sports, Felix Chaudhary, also complain about the lack of equipment in their newsrooms to support this wave of multimedia journalism.
“The biggest challenge is the lack of equipment and training,” Chaudhary says.
Fiji TV is doing everything it can to catch up to world standards and provide journalists with the best equipment and training to prepare them for the transition from traditional to multimedia journalism.
“We receive a lot of assistance from PACMAS and Internews,” Chaudhary says. “However, we are constantly looking for more training opportunities. The world is already moving towards that, and we just have to follow suit or get left behind.”
More confidence Fortunately for young Fijian journalists, Islands Business managing editor Samantha Magick says a lot of younger journalists are more confident to go out and produce and write their own stories.
“It’s the education now,” she says. “All the journalists coming through are multimedia, so not as challenging for them.”
University of South Pacific student journalist Brittany Louise says the practical learning of all the different media in her journalism course will be beneficial for her future.
“I think that’s a major plus,” she says. “You already have some sort of skills so it helps you with whatever different equipment it may be.”
Catrin Gardiner was a student journalist from the Queensland University of Technology who travelled to Fiji with the support of the Australian government’s New Colombo Plan Mobility Programme. This article is published in a partnership of QUT with Asia Pacific Report, Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) and The University of the South Pacific.
The editorial, published on Saturday, was only the Times’ latest attack on the former president in the run-up to the election, but the searing indictment was all the more brutal for its brevity.
The 10-line editorial simply said:
“You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.”
The dismissal of Trump by The Times was in contrast to two other major US newspapers, both owned by billionaires — The Washington Post and the LA Times — which last month controversially refused to make an editorial call.
“You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead.” The brief editorial in The New York Times on Saturday, Image: NYT screenshot APR
If historical trends are anything to go by, most young people in the United States will not vote at this week’s presidential election. For example, at the 2016 presidential election, less than half of Americans aged 18 to 29 cast their ballot.
But a new campaign on the hugely popular online gaming platform Roblox aims to encourage young people in the US to get out and exercise their democratic right on Tuesday.
The “Virtual Vote” initiative is a partnership between Roblox game developers and a national political non-profit organisation called HeadCount.
It has already engaged thousands of Roblox users – and it may mark the beginning of an entirely new way young people worldwide learn about and engage with real-life politics.
The ultimate virtual universe
Roblox is an online gaming platform where people can create an avatar, play a library of user-created games and socialise. Its developers describe it as the “the ultimate virtual universe”.
The online gaming platform is especially popular among young people. However, it also poses a number of safety risks, including grooming and cyberbullying.
Because of this, some governments have cracked down on Roblox. For example, earlier this year, it was banned in Turkey.
Now the 2024 US presidential election has also entered the Roblox virtual gaming universe.
Justin Hochberg, CEO of Virtual Brand Group (which develops games for Roblox) and the founder of Virtual Vote stated that his goal was simple:
With 57% of gamers discovering global fashion, sports and entertainment brands while playing, this initiative meets Gen Z where they are to make a difference for the world’s biggest brand — #America.
Virtual Vote was launched just four weeks ago in partnership with Headcount, a long-standing, not-for-profit youth voter engagement platform in the US. Other organisations – many of which are prominent in the online brand and content space – have also come on board.
Players engage with Virtual Vote via popular games on Roblox, such as Livetopia, which has 4.7 billion user visits, and Karlie Kloss’s Fashion Klossette, which has 33.1 million total visits.
Upon entering Virtual Vote, players meet Sam the Eagle, a guide who encourages them to check their voter registration status. Through Sam, players explore interactive maps showing state-specific voting rules and timelines.
Virtual Vote is also a form of gaming and entertainment with big rewards and prizes for players who engage with it. Up for grabs is a trip to Hollywood to meet television presenter Jimmy Kimmel, VIP tickets to see musician Sabrina Carpenter, a snowboarding trip with champion American snowboarder Jamie Anderson, as well as limited-edition merchandise and content to play within Roblox.
In the four weeks since its launch, Virtual Vote has had a strong response from Roblox users. More than 500,000 people have played the mini game so far – almost 4,000 of whom subsequently checked their voter registration status.
Shaping political viewpoints online
Platforms like Roblox, with their massive global youth audiences, are becoming increasingly important for shaping political views and real-world political engagement.
Children and young adults immersed in these virtual worlds may be unknowingly absorbing information and perspectives that could influence their future voting decisions.
Right now, the focus is on voter registration. However, given the huge impact it’s having, there is clear potential for such campaigns to become much more persuasive and biased.
In future, we could see kids vying for rewards within online games or social media that may subtly shape their political viewpoints, which they then carry into how they vote as adults.
This phenomenon has flown under the radar for the current US election. But its impact could be significant. Even more so since young people currently get so much of their news from social platforms.
For example, the current trend on TikTok of women “cancelling out” the pro-Trump votes of their partners reinforces a gender binary for voting habits. These trending videos are fun, comedic, give minimal factual information. But some of them are getting up to two million views each.
Similarly, election-themed videos – many of which have been identified as misinformation – on the popular online video platform YouTube have racked up millions of views in recent weeks.
Exacerbating this situation is that young people often use social media, watch YouTube and play games on Roblox in combination. This can mean triple the impact of how these platforms can shape their political views.
Online games and platforms are constantly shape-shifting and looking for new ways to engage with ever bigger global audiences.
So wherever we live in the world, a campaign like Virtual Vote – seeking to achieve real-world political influence through an online video game platform – are important to pay attention to.
Given the impact of Virtual Vote on so many young people, in such a short period of time, we can expect to see more political influence in their play. Shaping elections in the online space has just taken a new step.
Joanne Orlando has received funding from the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology
Large companies paid the Australian government a record A$100 billion in tax in the last year, a 17% increase on the previous year. But, over the same period, there were still 31% of large companies, operating here but not paying any tax.
The Australian Taxation Office’s annual corporate tax transparency report released last week includes data on nearly 4,000 of Australia’s largest corporations.
In its tenth year, the report is lauded by the government and ATO as a way to increase corporate accountability and reduce tax avoidance. But there is no detail on the tax practices of multinational entities, including how they interact with their offices around the world.
In particular, there is little information about how 1,200 companies paid no tax.
What the report tells us
The transparency report provides data on corporations with income of $100 million or more and businesses which pay the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT). This includes Australian public and foreign-owned corporate tax entities, as well as Australian-owned resident private companies.
The report details the total income, taxable income, tax payable, and PRRT payable for all entities that meet the reporting threshold. Taxable income is simply assessable income minus deductions. Tax payable as a percentage of taxable income, can then be used to calculate an effective tax rate. The statutory corporate tax rate is 30%.
A variation between an effective tax rate and the statutory tax rate is not evidence of tax avoidance. However, questions need to be asked about how profitable companies reduce their tax liability to zero.
Zero liability can be achieved by deducting offsets and credits. For example, companies that conduct significant research and development are given tax breaks which reduce the amount of tax payable.
Where a company has accounting losses or a tax loss because it has incurred more expenses than income, tax will be zero. These are legitimate reasons for paying no tax.
But the limited information provided simply tells us how profitable a company is, the amount of tax deductions claimed against that profit, and the tax payable.
What the report doesn’t tell us
The transparency report reveals little about tax practices of multinational entities.
The question remains what deductions are being claimed by corporations and tax entities. The ATO has this information but can only publish what the law allows them, which is limited.
For multinationals, deductions will include dealings with overseas parts of the global entity, such as subsidiaries or the parent entity. These transactions create legitimate tax deductions.
Common transactions include payments to overseas subsidiaries for services, royalty payments for intellectual property, and interest on overseas borrowings.
In the case of petrol company Chevron, money was borrowed in the United States at around 1.2% and on lent to a related Australian entity at 9%.
After a long court battle, about 5% of interest was allowed as a deduction, an amount significantly above the original interest rate. This gave Chevron in Australia a large tax deduction.
It is through these types of transactions profits earned in Australia are shifted overseas. Current tax law allows this but requires the transaction, known as the transfer price, to be at arm’s length – that is, the price is agreed to between independent parties entering the same transaction.
What is transfer pricing?
Multinationals are global by nature and therefore logically maximise worldwide profits. Tax systems do not operate in the same way.
Tax comes under domestic law which means transactions between parts of a global entity are recognised for tax purposes.
If goods or services are sold by one part of the entity to another, an internal transaction occurs. For tax purposes the transaction is recognised as a deduction in one location and income in another. An Australian entity would pay a foreign party for things like marketing, and get a deduction for the expense.
In recent years the ATO has settled marketing disputes with large multinationals including Google, BHP, Apple, Rio Tinto, ResMed and Microsoft.
Where a deduction is allowed in a high tax jurisdiction, such as Australia, and income is included in the profits of a low tax jurisdiction, such as Singapore, the result is larger overall global profits.
The tax system recognises the incentive for multinational entities to shift profits this way and requires transactions to be at a commercial or negotiated price. Determining the price however can be fraught and has led to numerous court cases and tax disputes.
The tax transparency report reveals nothing about these types of transactions.
Taxing multinationals in Australia
In the last decade there have been moves to tax income in the location of the economic activity. The OECD has tried to stop profit shifting by companies, which erodes the tax base of high taxing jurisdictions, through its tax reform agenda.
Further complicating the issue of transfer pricing is the question of whether there is any real activity in the countries where different parts of a multinational are located.
Singapore is recognised for what are known as service hubs. These are places where various services such as sales negotiations are conducted and marketing occurs. Singapore also happens to have a headline corporate tax rate of 17%. This is often reduced to single digits after deals are entered into between taxpayers and the Singapore revenue authority.
These are increasingly valuable assets for multinational entities as they provide a unique edge in the market. We only need to think of Apple, Microsoft and Google to understand how valuable names, logos and designs are.
By its very nature intellectual property has no physical location and can be owned anywhere in the world. Often, intellectual property is held in low or no tax countries.
The transparency report includes no details about how much is transferred to these locations. This is where Australia’s proposed public country-by-country reporting may assist.
Is the ATO’s corporate tax transparency report worthwhile?
Australia should continue to strive to be a leader in corporate tax transparency.
A two-step approach is required to eliminate corporate tax avoidance. Information is valuable and public transparency measures are an important first step.
A second step, however, is to reform substantive tax laws to tax profits where they are genuinely being generated.
Kerrie Sadiq is the recipient of a four year Australian Research Council Future Fellowship Grant.
Western publics are being subjected to a campaign of psychological warfare, where genocide is classed as ‘self-defence’ and opposition to it ‘terrorism’. Jonathan Cook reports as the world marked the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists at the weekend.
ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook
Israel knew that, if it could stop foreign correspondents from reporting directly from Gaza, those journalists would end up covering events in ways far more to its liking.
They would hedge every report of a new Israeli atrocity – if they covered them at all – with a “Hamas claims” or “Gaza family members allege”. Everything would be presented in terms of conflicting narratives rather than witnessed facts. Audiences would feel uncertain, hesitant, detached.
Israel could shroud its slaughter in a fog of confusion and disputation. The natural revulsion evoked by a genocide would be tempered and attenuated.
For a year, the networks’ most experienced war reporters have stayed put in their hotels in Israel, watching Gaza from afar. Their human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians.
That is why Western audiences have been forced to relive a single day of horror for Israel, on October 7, 2023, as intensely as they have a year of greater horrors in Gaza — in what the World Court has judged to be a “plausible” genocide by Israel.
That is why the media have immersed their audiences in the agonies of the families of some 250 Israelis — civilians taken hostage and soldiers taken captive — as much as they have the agonies of 2.3 million Palestinians bombed and starved to death week after week, month after month.
That is why audiences have been subjected to gaslighting narratives that frame Gaza’s destruction as a “humanitarian crisis” rather than the canvas on which Israel is erasing all the known rules of war.
Western media’s human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians. Image: www.jonathan-cook.net
While foreign correspondents sit obediently in their hotel rooms, Palestinian journalists have been picked off one by one — in the greatest massacre of journalists in history.
Israel is now repeating that process in Lebanon. On the night of October 24, it struck a residence in south Lebanon where three journalists were staying. All were killed.
In an indication of how deliberate and cynical Israel’s actions are, it put its military’s crosshairs on six Al Jazeera reporters last month, smearing them as “terrorists” working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are reportedly the last surviving Palestinian journalists in northern Gaza, which Israel has sealed off while it carries out the so-called “General’s Plan”.
Israel wants no one reporting its final push to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza by starving out the 400,000 Palestinians still there and executing anyone who remains as a “terrorist”.
These six join a long list of professionals defamed by Israel in the interests of advancing its genocide — from doctors and aid workers to UN peacekeepers.
Sympathy for Israel Perhaps the nadir of Israel’s domestication of foreign journalists was reached last month in a report by CNN. Back in February whistleblowing staff there revealed that the network’s executives have been actively obscuring Israeli atrocities to portray Israel in a more sympathetic light.
In a story whose framing should have been unthinkable — but sadly was all too predictable — CNN reported on the psychological trauma some Israeli soldiers are suffering from time spent in Gaza, in some cases leading to suicide.
Committing a genocide can be bad for your mental health, it seems. Or as CNN explained, its interviews “provide a window into the psychological burden that the war is casting on Israeli society”.
In its lengthy piece, titled “He got out of Gaza, but Gaza did not get out of him”, the atrocities the soldiers admit committing are little more than the backdrop as CNN finds yet another angle on Israeli suffering. Israeli soldiers are the real victims — even as they perpetrate a genocide on the Palestinian people.
One bulldozer driver, Guy Zaken, told CNN he could not sleep and had become vegetarian because of the “very, very difficult things” he had seen and had to do in Gaza.
What things? Zaken had earlier told a hearing of the Israeli Parliament that his unit’s job was to drive over many hundreds of Palestinians, some of them alive.
CNN reported: “Zaken says he can no longer eat meat, as it reminds him of the gruesome scenes he witnessed from his bulldozer in Gaza.”
Doubtless some Nazi concentration camp guards committed suicide in the 1940s after witnessing the horrors there — because they were responsible for them. Only in some weird parallel news universe, would their “psychological burden” be the story.
After a huge online backlash, CNN amended an editor’s note at the start of the article that originally read: “This story includes details about suicide that some readers may find upsetting.”
Readers, it was assumed, would find the suicide of Israeli soldiers upsetting, but apparently not the revelation that those soldiers were routinely driving over Palestinians so that, as Zaken explained, “everything squirts out”.
Banned from Gaza Finally, a year into Israel’s genocidal war, now rapidly spreading into Lebanon, some voices are being raised very belatedly to demand the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza.
This week — in a move presumably designed, as November’s elections loom, to ingratiate themselves with voters angry at the party’s complicity in genocide — dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden asking him to pressure Israel to give journalists “unimpeded access” to the enclave.
Don’t hold your breath.
Western media have done very little themselves to protest their exclusion from Gaza over the past year — for a number of reasons.
Given the utterly indiscriminate nature of Israel’s bombardment, major outlets have not wanted their journalists getting hit by a 2000lb bomb for being in the wrong place.
That may in part be out of concern for their welfare. But there are likely to be more cynical concerns.
Having foreign journalists in Gaza blown up or executed by snipers would drag media organisations into direct confrontation with Israel and its well-oiled lobby machine.
The response would be entirely predictable, insinuating that the journalists died because they were colluding with “the terrorists” or that they were being used as “human shields” — the excuse Israel has rolled out time and again to justify its targeting of doctors in Gaza and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
But there’s a bigger problem. The establishment media have not wanted to be in a position where their journalists are so close to the “action” that they are in danger of providing a clearer picture of Israel’s war crimes and its genocide.
The media’s current distance from the crime scene offers them plausible deniability as they both-sides every Israeli atrocity.
In previous conflicts, western reporters have served as witnesses, assisting in the prosecution of foreign leaders for war crimes. That happened in the wars that attended the break-up of Yugoslavia, and will doubtless happen once again if Russian President Valdimir Putin is ever delivered to The Hague.
But those journalistic testimonies were harnessed to put the West’s enemies behind bars, not its closest ally.
The media do not want their reporters to become chief witnesses for the prosecution in the future trials of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, at the International Criminal Court. The ICC’s Prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking arrest warrants for them both.
After all, any such testimony from journalists would not stop at Israel’s door. They would implicate Western capitals too, and put establishment media organisations on a collision course with their own governments.
The Western media does not see its job as holding power to account when the West is the one committing the crimes.
Censoring Palestinians Journalist whistleblowers have gradually been coming forward to explain how establishment news organisations — including the BBC and the supposedly liberal Guardian — are sidelining Palestinian voices and minimising the genocide.
An investigation by Novara Media recently revealed mounting unhappiness in parts of The Guardian newsroom at its double standards on Israel and Palestine.
Its editors recently censored a commentary by preeminent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa after she insisted on being allowed to refer to the slaughter in Gaza as “the holocaust of our times”.
Senior Guardian columnists such as Jonathan Freedland made much during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour party that Jews, and Jews alone, had the right to define and name their own oppression.
That right, however, does not appear to extend to Palestinians.
As staff who spoke to Novara noted, The Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, The Observer, had no problem opening its pages to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to smear as a “blood libel” any reporting of the provable fact that Israel has killed many, many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza.
One veteran journalist there said: “Is The Guardian more worried about the reaction to what is said about Israel than Palestine? Absolutely.”
Another staff member admitted it would be inconceivable for the paper to be seen censoring a Jewish writer. But censoring a Palestinian one is fine, it seems.
Other journalists report being under “suffocating control” from senior editors, and say this pressure exists “only if you’re publishing something critical of Israel”.
According to staff there, the word “genocide” is all but banned in the paper except in coverage of the International Court of Justice, whose judges ruled nine months ago that a “plausible” case had been made that Israel was committing genocide. Things have got far worse since.
Whistleblowing journalists Similarly, “Sara”, a whistleblower who recently resigned from the BBC newsroom and spoke of her experiences to Al Jazeera’s Listening Post, said Palestinians and their supporters were routinely kept off air or subjected to humiliating and insensitive lines of questioning.
Some producers have reportedly grown increasingly reluctant to bring on air vulnerable Palestinians, some of whom have lost family members in Gaza, because of concerns about the effect on their mental health from the aggressive interrogations they were being subjected to from anchors.
According to Sara, BBC vetting of potential guests overwhelmingly targets Palestinians, as well as those sympathetic to their cause and human rights organisations. Background checks are rarely done of Israelis or Jewish guests.
She added that a search showing that a guest had used the word “Zionism” — Israel’s state ideology — in a social media post could be enough to get them disqualified from a programme.
Even officials from one of the biggest rights group in the world, the New York-based Human Rights Watch, became persona non grata at the BBC for their criticisms of Israel, even though the corporation had previously relied on their reports in covering Ukraine and other global conflicts.
Israeli guests, by contrast, “were given free rein to say whatever they wanted with very little pushback”, including lies about Hamas burning or beheading babies and committing mass rape.
An email cited by Al Jazeera from more than 20 BBC journalists sent last February to Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, warned that the corporation’s coverage risked “aiding and abetting genocide through story suppression”.
Upside-down values These biases have been only too evident in the BBC’s coverage, first of Gaza and now, as media interest wanes in the genocide, of Lebanon.
Headlines — the mood music of journalism, and the only part of a story many of the audience read — have been uniformly dire.
For example, Netanyahu’s threats of a Gaza-style genocide against the Lebanese people last month if they did not overthrow their leaders were soft-soaped by the BBC headline: “Netanyahu’s appeal to Lebanese people falls on deaf ears in Beirut.”
Reasonable readers would have wrongly inferred both that Netanyahu was trying to do the Lebanese people a favour (by preparing to murder them), and that they were being ungrateful in not taking up his offer.
It has been the same story everywhere in the establishment media. In another extraordinary, revealing moment, Kay Burley of Sky News announced last month the deaths of four Israeli soldiers from a Hezbollah drone strike on a military base inside Israel.
With a solemnity usually reserved for the passing of a member of the British royal family, she slowly named the four soldiers, with a photo of each shown on screen. She stressed twice that all four were only 19 years old.
Sky News seemed not to understand that these were not British soldiers, and that there was no reason for a British audience to be especially disturbed by their deaths. Soldiers are killed in wars all the time — it is an occupational hazard.
And further, if Israel considered them old enough to fight in Gaza and Lebanon, then they were old enough to die too without their age being treated as particularly noteworthy.
But more significantly still, Israel’s Golani Brigade to which these soldiers belonged has been centrally involved in the slaughter of Palestinians over the past year. Its troops have been responsible for many of the tens of thousands of children killed and maimed in Gaza.
Each of the four soldiers was far, far less deserving of Burley’s sympathy and concern than the thousands of children who have been slaughtered at the hands of their brigade. Those children are almost never named and their pictures are rarely shown, not least because their injuries are usually too horrifying to be seen.
It was yet more evidence of the upside-down world the establishment media has been trying to normalise for its audiences.
It is why statistics from the United States, where the coverage of Gaza and Lebanon may be even more unhinged, show faith in the media is at rock bottom. Fewer than one in three respondents — 31 percent — said they still had a “great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media”.
Crushing dissent Israel is the one dictating the coverage of its genocide. First by murdering the Palestinian journalists reporting it on the ground, and then by making sure house-trained foreign correspondents stay well clear of the slaughter, out of harm’s way in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
And as ever, Israel has been able to rely on the complicity of its Western patrons in crushing dissent at home.
Last week, a British investigative journalist, Asa Winstanley, an outspoken critic of Israel and its lobbyists in the UK, had his home in London raided at dawn by counter-terrorism police.
Though the police have not arrested or charged him — at least not yet — they snatched his electronic devices. He was warned that he is being investigated for “encouragement of terrorism” in his social media posts.
Police told Middle East Eye that his devices had been seized as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences of “support for a proscribed organisation” and “dissemination of terrorist documents”.
The police can act only because of Britain’s draconian, anti-speech Terrorism Act.
Section 12, for example, makes the expression of an opinion that could be interpreted as sympathetic to armed Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation — a right enshrined in international law but sweepingly dismissed as “terrorism” in the West — itself a terrorism offence.
Those journalists who haven’t been house-trained in the establishment media, as well as solidarity activists, must now chart a treacherous path across intentionally ill-defined legal terrain when talking about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Winstanley is not the first journalist to be accused of falling foul of the Terrorism Act. In recent weeks, Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist, was arrested at Heathrow airport on his return from a trip abroad. Another journalist-activist, Sarah Wilkinson, was briefly arrested after her home was ransacked by police.
Their electronic devices were seized too.
Meanwhile, Richard Barnard, co-founder of Palestine Action, which seeks to disrupt the UK’s supply of weapons to Israel’s genocide, has been charged over speeches he has made against the genocide.
It now appears that all these actions are part of a specific police campaign targeting journalists and Palestinian solidarity activists: “Operation Incessantness”.
The message this clumsy title is presumably supposed to convey is that the British state is coming after anyone who speaks out too loudly against the British government’s continuing arming and complicity in Israel’s genocide.
Notably, the establishment media have failed to cover this latest assault on journalism and the role of a free press — supposedly the very things they are there to protect.
The raid on Winstanley’s home and the arrests are intended to intimidate others, including independent journalists, into silence for fear of the consequences of speaking up.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather, it is terrorism by the British state.
Once again the world is being turned upside down.
Echoes from history The West is waging a campaign of psychological warfare on its populations: it is gaslighting and disorientating them, classing genocide as “self-defence” and opposition to it a form of “terrorism”.
This is an expansion of the persecution suffered by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who spent years locked up in London’s Belmarsh high-security prison.
His unprecedented journalism — revealing the darkest secrets of Western states — was redefined as espionage. His “offence” was revealing that Britain and the US had committed systematic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, on the back of that precedent, the British state is coming after journalists simply for embarrassing it.
Late last month I attended a meeting in Bristol against the genocide in Gaza at which the main speaker was physically absent after the British state failed to issue him an entry visa.
The missing guest — he had to join us by zoom — was Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, who was locked up for decades as a terrorist before becoming the first leader of post-apartheid South Africa and a feted, international statesman.
Mandla Mandela was until recently a member of the South African Parliament.
A Home Office spokesperson told Middle East Eye that the UK only issued visas “to those who we want to welcome to our country”.
Media reports suggest Britain was determined to exclude Mandela because, like his grandfather, he views the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid as intimately linked to the earlier struggle against South Africa’s apartheid.
The echoes from history are apparently entirely lost on officials: the UK is once again associating the Mandela family with terrorism. Before it was to protect South Africa’s apartheid regime. Now it is to protect Israel’s even worse apartheid and genocidal regime.
The world is indeed turned on its head. And the West’s supposedly “free media” is playing a critical role in trying to make our upside-down world seem normal.
That can only be achieved by failing to report the Gaza genocide as a genocide. Instead, Western journalists are serving as little more than stenographers. Their job: to take dictation from Israel.
Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years and returned to the UK in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). In 2011, Cook was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism for his work on Palestine and Israel. This article was first published in Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.
Crossbench independents Allegra Spender, Helen Haines and Kate Chaney have declared they are pulling out of the elite lounges run by Qantas and Virgin, amid the ongoing spotlight on privileges politicians receive from the airlines.
Allegra Spender, the member for the Sydney seat of Wentworth, also said she’d write to ask Qantas and Virgin not to give free upgrades to parliamentarians. It was “time to end the upgrades”.
She said all sides of politics enjoyed the perks, and both major parties had blocked greater competition from Qatar Airways.
Airlines operated under government policy and ministerial decisions, she said. “The public is understandably losing trust in politicians to make those decisions impartially when they’re being given free upgrades from the companies they’re supposed to regulate.”
Spender urged a review of the ministerial code of conduct. Tighter rules were needed about what politicians could accept. The code should also be extended to shadow ministers. There should as well be much more transparency over the diaries of ministers, she said.
“This is the only way to deal with the perception – and potential reality – of decisions being influenced by perks.”
But Labor MP Luke Gosling, from the Darwin seat of Solomon, accused her of grandstanding. “It’s a bit rich from the people with harbour views who either drive or have less than a one-hour flight,” he told the ABC.
Haines, from the Victorian regional seat of Indi, said she was quitting the lounges because she wanted “to remove any possibility of an actual or perceived conflict of interest” in her work as an MP.
“The reality that airlines offer these kinds of perks because ultimately they want to get something in return does not sit well with me and I want to continue to contribute to creating a culture of transparency and accountability through my actions as well as my words.”
Haines said she wanted “to see more rigorous rules around MP disclosures of upgrades and I think a ban on soliciting free flight upgrades is more than reasonable”.
Chaney, who holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, said with the media attention on the issue “we need to do everything we can to rebuild trust in politicians making decisions in the public interest”.
Another crossbencher, Monique Ryan, from the Melbourne seat of Kooyong, who dropped her Qantas chairman’s lounge membership last year on integrity grounds, said she welcomed the discussion about the impact of corporate largesse on MPs’ decision-making.
“I am deeply concerned about lobbying and its potential to impact government decision making. Free upgrades and airline hospitality are lobbying practices that we have taken for granted for a long time, and it is important that we re-examine them — especially given public concerns about conflicts of interest.”
Meanwhile there is no indication of when opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie, who was leading the charge against the prime minister over his upgrades, will produce a list of her own. She has said she has written to three airlines to check what upgrades she has had.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University
Visual images often last in historical and popular memory. This is especially the case in presidential campaigns in the United States, which offer a vast mix of spectacle, surprise and drama.
An historian of political visual culture can no more predict which images are likely to last the test of time than we can know who will win. But we can explain why some historical images from presidential campaigns resonate.
This election season has produced the most media savvy and diverse campaign imagery of all time. Cable news, social media and artificial intelligence have created a whole new universe of image-based narratives.
In this rich visual landscape, here are three images likely to last the test of time.
1. Trump’s ‘fight!’ photo
The uncontroversial front-runner for defining image has to be Evan Vucci’s photograph of Donald Trump being led off the stage in Pennsylvania after surviving an assassination attempt in July.
Both are photographed from below and feature the national flag above Americans working against adversity to reach a common goal. Both fit squarely into the tradition of wartime photojournalism.
Both photographs enjoyed instantaneous popularity: Trump’s image went viral and the Iwo Jima image was featured on a US postage stamp before the war’s end.
But their greatest similarity resides in the cultural symbolism of the images.
Both accurately represent an historical moment; a specific point in time. But the point in time has been actively selected to fit a narrative. The narratives projected are deeply held mythologised symbols of aspirational patriotism.
Visual literacy prompts us to think about which images were discounted in the selection of these historically powerful two. Historical legacies and the national mythologies that fuel these lean toward images of success over pictures of wartime death and suffering.
This image of Trump fits all the criteria we would typically and probably unconsciously apply when assessing if an image is likely to have long-term significance.
The baseline characteristic of iconic images is a general bipartisan understanding of what an image “says”. Regardless of whether you agree with the message being conveyed, you understand its social context, why the image is provocative, dramatic or funny (or not), as well as its historical references.
However, contemporary images are not always so straightforward to read – and in a post-truth AI world, it is harder than ever to decipher the visual culture of politics.
2. Brat summer and coconut memes
Kamala Harris’s youth and vision for the future headlined her campaign’s creation of “Kamala HQ”. The strategy adopted the bright green branding and font of Charli XCX’s smash album Brat after the pop star posted on X: “kamala IS brat”.
Social media has been a critical tool in introducing Harris to voters, especially those of voting age for the first time in 2024. The campaign’s use of social media represented young people as engaged and respected decision makers.
Voters have had more than a century to become accustomed to photojournalism. In contrast, a lot of social media representation has arisen from community activism over the past few years. Reporting from women’s marches this past weekend showed links to the visual culture of the protests that followed Trump’s 2016 election.
You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.
This moment went viral during the 2024 election, and it was not long before people started signalling their support for Harris by adding a coconut emoji to their profile or comments.
The popularity of the coconut meme by Harris supporters indicates a rejection of the derogatory use of the term “coconut” against people of colour “acting white”.
The production and reception of memes by younger voters demonstrates a media literacy and sophistication that also requires continuous fact-checking.
This point was made in Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris, which urged her followers to do their own “reliability” checking of information in their feeds after Trump and other conservative figures shared AI-generated images of Swift and her fans allegedly supporting Trump.
3. The televised debate handshake
A key image from the debate between Harris and Trump came in the first few minutes, when Harris crossed the stage to offer her hand. It was the first debate handshake in eight years.
This was a bold action given Trump’s prowling movement on the 2016 debate stage against Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and his well documented predilection for firm handshakes.
The handshake is representative of the campaign, which has been called “a referendum on gender”. It evoked the image of strong and confident leadership – a central theme as Harris spoke passionately about reproductive rights and abortion.
Televised presidential debates are one of the most keenly watched and analysed moments of the presidential election season. Image is everything.
Their importance is perhaps best indicated by Justin Sullivan’s photograph of President Joe Biden, mouth agape and looking frail beneath the word “presidential” during the June debate this year.
While they rarely lead to an outcome as extreme as a candidate exiting the race, as ended up happening with Biden, the images and soundbites they generate can resonate for decades.
During the first ever nationally televised presidential debate in 1960, Republican candidate Richard Nixon was said to be unwell and refused to wear makeup. Compared to his opponent, Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy, he sweated profusely on stage, creating an image that was disastrous to his eventually unsuccessful campaign.
Between the staged and “gotcha” moments of every presidential campaign, debates provide a unique – and, in 2024, a singular – window into how the candidates relate to each other as humans across an ever-widening ideological divide.
Kylie Message has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Warburton, Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne
These include wiping 20% off debts, increasing the income threshold for compulsory repayments, and changing the amounts people have to repay.
As well as encouraging Australians to study, the changes aim to provide cost-of-living relief – or, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday:
putting more dollars in the pockets of people who feel, justifiably, that they’re getting the rough end of the pineapple.
The changes are certainly an improvement. Unfortunately, they are not as good as they should be – particularly if you have a HELP debt and a family to support.
What is the point of HELP?
My analysis of the most recently released tax statistics indicates more than 70% of those required to make a HELP repayment in 2021–22 earned between A$60,000 and A$120,000. Only 20% earned more than $120,000 and less than 10% earned less than $60,000.
The HECS (now HELP) system was conceived in the 1980s as a way to generate revenue to help the government pay for an expansion of university places.
It doesn’t matter if people do not repay all of their loans. The primary purpose is to have students who have benefited, and can afford to contribute to the cost of their education, give something back.
While fairness has always been a key plank of HECS/HELP, there are some major problems with the system. And the changes announced over the weekend continue to ignore them.
The HECS/HELP system was designed so students would only repay loans if they had the capacity to do so. Enrico Della Pietra/ Shutterstock
What about families?
Student loan arrangements have never taken account of other government payments and obligations such as social security, taxation rates, taxation rebates and Medicare levies.
As I have shown in this analysis, for some family types, HELP repayments combine to produce ridiculous effective tax rates.
Imagine the following scenarios for someone with a HELP debt, earning between $60,000 and $100,000 and who had a pay increase in this income range.
In 2022-23, if you were single with no kids, the average effective tax rate on the extra earnings was 51%.
If you were single with two kids aged four and seven, the average effective tax rate on the extra earnings was 77%. If those children were ten and 13, it was 73%.
The situation is similar in a couple family with two children where only one parent is able to work. The working parent has little incentive to increase their earned income and this won’t change much under the new proposals.
The reason people in these situations keep so little of their extra earnings is because as family incomes increase, they lose family tax benefits, they pay more tax and their Medicare levy increases.
There is not enough attention paid to how all these arrangements interact and how they affect people overall.
We need to know many families are paying HELP
The government’s plan to increase the HELP repayment threshold to those with an annual income of $67,000 is a welcome improvement. The system was never intended to take money off people with virtually no capacity to pay.
The government’s plan to simplify the repayment arrangements is also a positive step. The current system has 18 different repayment rates applied to total income, which means people are repeatedly going backwards when they earn extra money. The new plan to only calculate repayments on dollars over the threshold (the marginal rate approach) stops this from happening.
But the system continues to disregard how people with HELP debts can be in different family circumstances.
In my work on HELP, I often get asked how many HELP debtors have dependent children. The answer is I do not know and neither does the government.
None of the data which the government releases provides any information on family circumstances, despite the fact around $4.6 billion was collected from 1.2 million individuals in 2021-22 (the most recent year we have for this data).
This is vital information to make good policy and fair decisions but we do not have it.
Could these problems be fixed?
We could reduce many of the worst impacts here with a single marginal rate for calculating HELP repayments and thresholds which varied depending on the number of children and partner’s income.
The repayment rate and thresholds could be adjusted to deliver an acceptable repayment level for individuals and sufficient revenue for government to support university funding.
There is no point in pretending the current system is one in which people have an insignificant level of debt that is repaid quickly after university.
It is time we had a system that truly recognised this.
Mark Warburton is a member of the Australian Labor Party and occasional provider of consultancy services to groups such as Universities Australia and the Australian Technology Network.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney
The United States Department of Agriculture last week reported that a pig on a backyard farm in Oregon was infected with bird flu.
As the bird flu situation has evolved, we’ve heard about the A/H5N1 strain of the virus infecting a range of animals, including a variety of birds, wild animals and dairy cattle.
Fortunately, we haven’t seen any sustained spread between humans at this stage. But the detection of the virus in a pig marks a worrying development in the trajectory of this virus.
How did we get here?
The most concerning type of bird flu currently circulating is clade 2.3.4.4b of A/H5N1, a strain of influenza A.
Since 2020, A/H5N1 2.3.4.4b has spread to a vast range of birds, wild animals and farm animals that have never been infected with bird flu before.
While Europe is a hotspot for A/H5N1, attention is currently focused on the US. Dairy cattle were infected for the first time in 2024, with more than 400 herds affected across at least 14 US states.
Bird flu has enormous impacts on farming and commercial food production, because infected poultry flocks have to be culled, and infected cows can result in contaminated diary products. That said, pasteurisation should make milk safe to drink.
While farmers have suffered major losses due to H5N1 bird flu, it also has the potential to mutate to cause a human pandemic.
Birds and humans have different types of receptors in their respiratory tract that flu viruses attach to, like a lock (receptors) and key (virus). The attachment of the virus allows it to invade a cell and the body and cause illness. Avian flu viruses are adapted to birds, and spread easily among birds, but not in humans.
So far, human cases have mainly occurred in people who have been in close contact with infected farm animals or birds. In the US, most have been farm workers.
The concern is that the virus will mutate and adapt to humans. One of the key steps for this to happen would be a shift in the virus’ affinity from the bird receptors to those found in the human respiratory tract. In other words, if the virus’ “key” mutated to better fit with the human “lock”.
A recent study of a sample of A/H5N1 2.3.4.4b from an infected human had worrying findings, identifying mutations in the virus with the potential to increase transmission between human hosts.
Why are pigs a problem?
A human pandemic strain of influenza can arise in several ways. One involves close contact between humans and animals infected with their own specific flu viruses, creating opportunities for genetic mixing between avian and human viruses.
Pigs are the ideal genetic mixing vessel to generate a human pandemic influenza strain, because they have receptors in their respiratory tracts which both avian and human flu viruses can bind to.
This means pigs can be infected with a bird flu virus and a human flu virus at the same time. These viruses can exchange genetic material to mutate and become easily transmissible in humans.
In the recent case in Oregon, A/H5N1 was detected in a pig on a non-commercial farm after an outbreak occurred among the poultry housed on the same farm. This strain of A/H5N1 was from wild birds, not the one that is widespread in US dairy cows.
The infection of a pig is a warning. If the virus enters commercial piggeries, it would create a far greater level of risk of a pandemic, especially as the US goes into winter, when human seasonal flu starts to rise.
How can we mitigate the risk?
Surveillance is key to early detection of a possible pandemic. This includes comprehensive testing and reporting of infections in birds and animals, alongside financial compensation and support measures for farmers to encourage timely reporting.
Strengthening global influenza surveillance is crucial, as unusual spikes in pneumonia and severe respiratory illnesses could signal a human pandemic. Our EPIWATCH system looks for early warnings of such activity, which can speed up vaccine development.
If a cluster of human cases occurs, and influenza A is detected, further testing (called subtyping) is essential to ascertain whether it’s a seasonal strain, an avian strain from a spillover event, or a novel pandemic strain.
Early identification can prevent a pandemic. Any delay in identifying an emerging pandemic strain enables the virus to spread widely across international borders.
Australia’s first human case of A/H5N1 occurred in a child who acquired the infection while travelling in India, and was hospitalised with illness in March 2024. At the time, testing revealed Influenza A (which could be seasonal flu or avian flu), but subtyping to identify A/H5N1 was delayed.
This kind of delay can be costly if a human-transmissible A/H5N1 arises and is assumed to be seasonal flu because the test is positive for influenza A. Only about 5% of tests positive for influenza A are subtyped further in Australia and most countries.
In light of the current situation, there should be a low threshold for subtyping influenza A strains in humans. Rapid tests which can distinguish between seasonal and H5 influenza A are emerging, and should form part of governments’ pandemic preparedness.
A higher risk than ever before
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the current risk posed by H5N1 to the general public remains low.
But with H5N1 now able to infect pigs, and showing worrying mutations for human adaptation, the level of risk has increased. Given the virus is so widespread in animals and birds, the statistical probability of a pandemic arising is higher than ever before.
The good news is, we are better prepared for an influenza pandemic than other pandemics, because vaccines can be made in the same way as seasonal flu vaccines. As soon as the genome of a pandemic influenza virus is known, the vaccines can be updated to match it.
Partially matched vaccines are already available, and some countries such as Finland are vaccinating high-risk farm workers.
C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC (L3 Investigator grant and Centre for Research Excellence) and MRFF (Aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 experimentally and in an intensive care setting) currently. She currently receives funding from Sanofi for research on influenza and pertussis. She is the director of EPIWATCH®️, which is a UNSW, Kirby Institute initiative. She has been an invited speaker at the 2024 Options for The Control of Influenza at four symposia organised by Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi and Seqirus respectively.
Haley Stone receives funding from The Balvi Filantropic Fund. Haley Stone would like to acknowledge the support through a University International Postgraduate Award from the University of New South Wales.
Both major parties in Australia see a significant role for gas as the world shifts to clean energy in a bid to avert dangerous climate change.
The Albanese government says new sources of gas are needed to meet demand during the energy transition. And the Coalition, if elected, would expand gas use as it prepares for nuclear power.
Of course, some people argue that the grave threat of climate change means we should not burn any gas. Others say the strong growth in renewable energy generation and storage means Australia won’t need gas into the future.
So who is right? As I explain below, renewable energy is a huge part of the solution but doesn’t solve every problem. So keeping some gas-fired generators in the electricity mix, and using them only when necessary, is a sensible compromise.
Getting to grips with gas
There are almost 40 large natural gas-fired generators in Australia, and they are an important part of the National Electricity Market.
According to Open Electricity — a platform for tracking Australia’s electricity transition – the gas facilities generate around 4% of the electricity we consume and comprise about 17% of overall generation capacity.
The data also shows gas plants in Australia run at just 9% of their overall capacity, meaning they are idle much of the time. Some gas plants get used quite a lot, others only rarely. But when the plants are called on – during times of peak electricity use – their services are vital.
Overnight, our demand for electricity dips. But when we wake in the morning and start toasting bread and boiling kettles and the like, electricity demand picks up.
Demand eases off in the middle of the day as the sun rises high in the sky and Australia’s booming rooftop solar reaches its peak electricity output. But when the sun sets and rooftop solar is no longer producing, electricity use peaks. This early-evening demand creates a big challenge to the system.
That’s why we need technologies that can produce electricity at any time of day or night – and do it quickly. That’s where gas-fired generation – and other “dispatchable” forms of electricity – come in.
How do gas fired generators work?
Gas generators come in two main types.
An “open cycle generator”, also known as a Brayton cycle turbine, is essentially a jet engine. It combusts gas in a chamber to create enormous pressure that spins large fans. This drives a shaft that spins in the generator to produce electricity.
This technology is relatively cheap to build and can start up very quickly – but it’s also quite inefficient to operate. It uses a lot of expensive fuel, and creates a lot of waste heat.
The second type is known as a “combined cycle generator”. It also uses a Brayton cycle gas turbine. But it captures exhaust heat from the turbine and uses it to create steam, which in turn powers a second turbine (known as a Rankine cycle). This significantly increases the amount of electricity produced for the same amount of gas burned.
So while this technology is relatively efficient, it’s also more expensive to build and takes longer to ramp up and down.
Other types of gas generators exist, but they’re a relatively small part of Australia’s fleet.
A video explaining how gas turbines work.
Gas is not the only option
Gas plants are not the only facilities capable of firming up Australia’s electricity grid as the share of renewables increases.
Hydro power can also quickly ramp up to meet the evening peak. However the potential for building new conventional hydro in Australia is very limited due to the lack of large river systems and the significant environmental impact on rivers and surrounding areas.
Coal-fired generators have potential to ramp up production, but are generally not designed to do this every evening. Plus, Australia’s fleet of old coal plants is on a fast path to retirement.
To maintain the delicate balance of supply and demand, more will be required of gas and hydro, to produce electricity, and batteries and pumped hydro, to store it.
Pumped hydro works by using excess renewable energy to pump water up a hill. When electricity demand is high, the water is released and passes through a turbine, producing power.
The potential for pumped hydro energy storage in Australia is large, and some projects are likely to be economically viable. But the projects can face challenges, as demonstrated by delays and cost blowouts facing Snowy 2.0 in New South Wales.
Large-scale lithium-ion batteries are relatively easy to install. Many projects have been built or are in the pipeline. But batteries are not great for long-duration energy storage.
All this means gas-fired power generation is likely to have a future in Australia in coming decades.
The downsides of gas
Methane is the main component of natural gas. It’s also a potent contributor to global warming.
During natural gas production and transport, gas leaks inevitably occur. This is a problem for climate change.
So too is the carbon dioxide produced when the gas is burned to produce electricity.
To tackle climate change, we must dramatically reduce the amount of gas we use in our electricity system. Gas use should also be eliminated for heating and cooking in our homes and, where possible, in industry.
So where does that leave us?
Unfortunately, no perfect solution exists to Australia’s electricity supply-demand conundrum.
The most likely, most economic and most environmentally acceptable approach is to use a “portfolio” of technologies: lots of batteries and pumped hydro but also some gas.
Because to keep the system stable and reliable, we need some capacity that will mostly sit idle, getting used on only a few occasions. For that reason, the technologies should be relatively cheap to build and able to run for extended periods when wind and solar generation are abnormally low.
Gas-fired power – especially open cycle generators – meets that requirement. Pumped hydro and batteries do not.
The gas plants we keep in the grid will not often be used, and so will produce relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide.
Nuanced questions remain. What will it cost to keep a gas network operating to serve a fleet of gas generators that run only for a few days a year? Gas pipelines have to be kept pressurised, and the cost of running a gas extraction network for small demand may also be uneconomical.
Non-fossil options such as biogas, hydrogen or synthetically produced methane are possible longer term options. But they are also expensive. And new technologies – such as flow batteries, thermal energy storage and cryogenic energy storage – are on the horizon.
So, keeping some gas-fired generators on standby, and using them sparingly as needed, is a reasonable approach. It allows us to reduce emissions as much as possible, and keep our electricity system secure and affordable.
Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Woodside-Monash Energy Partnership, RACE for 2030 CRC, and he consults for industry and government bodies.
“In his message for the day, the secretary-general underscores that a free press is fundamental to human rights, to democracy and to the rule of law,” Dujarric said.
‘Alarming rate of fatalities’ “Recent years have seen an alarming rate of fatalities in conflict zones, particularly in Gaza, which has seen the highest number of killings of journalists and media workers in a war in decades.
“In his message, he warned that journalists in Gaza have been killed at a level unseen by any conflict in modern times.
“The ongoing ban preventing international journalists from Gaza suffocates the truth even further,” he said.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has returned from New Caledonia saying it is not a simple “black and white situation”.
Brown returned from a three-day Pacific fact-finding mission in the French Pacific territory alongside the Prime Ministers of Solomon Islands, Tonga and Fiji.
New Caledonia has been going through a period of turmoil with violence and arson since May, resulting in 13 deaths and the destruction of many businesses.
“There’s no doubt there is a call and a need for the easing of tensions in the country,” Brown said.
“This would enable more dialogue to take place between the various vested groups to find a pathway forward for New Caledonia.”
Brown said Kanaky New Caledonia’s population was diverse, made up of indigenous Kanak, French, and Pacific diaspora.
Almost all of these groups want greater autonomy from France with some also wanting full independence or to remain a French territory, he said.
“But you have quite a large group between those two extremes that want a way forward that enables New Caledonians, all of them, to be able to determine their own future.”
Pacific policing France ‘may wish to consider’ Brown said Australia’s newly proposed regional policing initiative is “an option that New Caledonians may wish to consider”.
“At the moment that’s being done by the state government through France through its gendarmes and police force.”
The last time regional policing was used was in Solomon Islands after ethnic unrest in the 2000s, he said.
When asked whether France had “militarised” New Caledonia, Brown said France sent a lot of support “to help maintain law and order” but the focus now was on the reduction of tensions and dialogue.
France’s Ambassador to the Pacific Véronique told the ABC she doubted French authorities would see the need for Pacific police to be deployed to New Caledonia.
Brown said the other issue was the need for an urgent financial package.
“Unlike most other Pacific countries in cases of disaster whether they be natural disaster or other sorts, Pacific countries have the likes of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, development partners that would support and assist.
Relying solely on France “In the case of New Caledonia, it doesn’t have the association with any of those financial institutions and would rely solely on France for its support.”
There needed to first be a reduction of tensions so that any rebuild would not be under threat from more civil unrest, he said.
Brown said Pacific nations had taken different decolonisation paths — with the exception of Tonga which had never been colonised.
Fiji became a republic after a number of coups and Cook Islands is self-governing in free association with New Zealand.
“Each of us took a different path to where we are today to gain our autonomy and our sovereignty and it’s something that we were able to share with New Caledonia.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Palau’s largest newspaper is being sued for defamation by the company of President Surangel Whipps Jr’s father, just days ahead of general elections in the Pacific nation.
Surangel and Sons alleges “negligence and defamation” by the Island Times and its editor Leilani Reklai for an article published on Tuesday with “false and unsubstantiated allegations,” owner Surangel Whipps Sr said in a press release on Thursday.
Reklai has rejected the company’s allegations and said the “lawsuit is trying to control how media here in Palau tells a story”, a news article about the case in the Island Times reported on Friday.
“I feel like we are being intimidated, we are being forced to speak a certain narrative rather than present diverse community perspectives,” said Reklai, who is also a stringer for BenarNews.
The Micronesian nation of 17,000 people — 650 km north of Papua New Guinea — goes to the polls on November 5. Whipps Jr’s rival is his brother-in-law Tommy Remengesau Jr, who was president from 2001 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021.
The controversy comes after Palau was top of the inaugural 2023 Pacific Media Freedom Index of 14 island countries that highlighted the region’s media facing significant political and economic pressures, bribes and corruption, as well as self-censorship.
Island Times editor Leilani Reklai . . . fears the lawsuit could have serious consequences for the media in Palau and bankrupt the newspaper. Image: Stefan Armbruster
Island Times reported on Friday the suit is seeking compensation and punitive damages and that the company asserts the “monetary awards should be substantial enough to prevent similar conduct from the newspaper and Reklai in future”.
Surangel and Sons financial details — leaked from the country’s tax office — were posted on social media last weekend, prompting heated online debate over how much it paid.
A new corporate and goods and services tax system introduced by Whipps Jr’s government is currently being rolled out in Palau and its merits have been a focus of election campaigning.
The company in a statement said its “privacy rights had been violated,” the tax details were obtained illegally, posted online without consent, and some of the figures had been altered.
Motivation ‘confusing voters’ “The motivation behind the circulation of this document is clearly for misinformation and disinformation to confuse voters. In the end Surangel and Sons is not running for office. Unfortunately, it has been victimised by this smear campaign,” the company posted on social media.
Island Times in a 225-word, front-page story headlined “Surangel & Sons condemns tax report leak as privacy violation” reported the company’s statement on Tuesday. It also quoted financial details from the leaked documents and accompanying commentary.
Whipps Jr. in a press conference on Wednesday accused the Island Times of publishing disinformation.
“Island Times continues to print political propaganda, it’s not accurate,” Whipps Jr said, calling for a correction to be published.
The lawsuit against the paper and its editor was served the next day.
Whipps Jr’s spokesperson told BenarNews any questions related to the lawsuit should be directed to the parties involved.
Eightieth birthday celebrations for Surangel Whipps Sr (left) with his son Surangel Whipps Jr in February 2020. Image: Diaz Broadcasting Palau screenshot BenarNews
Surangel and Sons was founded in 1980 by Whipps Sr, who also served as Palau’s president briefly in 2005 and for two years from 2007.
Business ‘offers everything’ The privately-owned business “offers everything from housing design and automotive repair to equipment rentals, groceries, and scuba gear” through its import, sales, construction and travel arms, the company’s website says.
Previously as CEO, Whipps Jr transformed the company from a family store to one of Palau’s largest and most diversified businesses, employing more than 700 people.
His LinkedIn profile states he finished as CEO in January 2021, after 28 years in the position and in the month he became president. His spokesperson did not respond to questions from BenarNews about if he still retains any direct financial or other links to the company.
Surangel and Sons said the revelation of sensitive business information threatens their competitive advantage and puts jobs at risk.
Palau’s Minister of Finance Kaleb Udui Jr told the president’s press conference on Wednesday an investigation was underway, a special prosecutor would be appointed and apologized for the leak to the company.
“I would hope the media would make extra effort to help educate the public and discourage misinformation and breaches of privacy of the tax office and any other government office,” Udui said, confirming the tax documents had been altered before being posted on social media.
He said tax office staff have previously been warned about leaks and ensuring data confidentiality, as breaches negatively impact the confidence of foreign investors in Palau.
Explanation rather than leak Whipps Jr added that the newspaper should have explained the tax system instead of reporting the leaked information.
He also accused Island Times of failure to disclose a paid advertisement in this week’s edition of the paper for his political opponent.
“I’m disappointed in the Island Times, because there was an article that was not an article, a paid advertisement,” Whipps Jr said about a colourful blue and yellow election campaign graphic.
Island Times told BenarNews it was not usual practice to put “Paid Advertisement” on advertisements but it would review its policy for political campaign material.
Reklai fears the lawsuit could have serious consequences for the media in Palau and bankrupt Island Times, the paper reported.
“If I don’t stand up to this, it sends a signal to all journalists that they risk facing claims for damages for powerful companies and government officials while carrying out their work,” she said.
Palau has two newspapers and four radio stations and enshrined in its constitution are protections for journalists, including a guarantee they cannot be jailed for refusing to disclose sources.
Surangel and Sons said they would no longer sell Island Times through their outlets.
The Palau Media Council has condemned a political lawsuit against the publisher of the Island Times as an “assault on press freedom” with the Pacific country facing an election on Tuesday.
In a statement yesterday, the council added that the lawsuit, filed by Surangel and Sons Co. against Times publisher Leilani Reklai over her newspaper’s coverage of tax-related documents that surfaced on social media, was an attempt to undermine the accountability that was vital to democracy.
The statement also said the lawsuit raised “critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and freedom of the press.
“This lawsuit, combined with government’s statements endorsing that Island Times reported mis-information on its coverage of the tax related document and the decision to ban Island Times from Surangel and Sons [distribution] outlets, raises critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and the freedom of the press — both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society,” the statement said.
“The council sees this legal action as an assault on press freedom and an attempt to undermine the accountability that is vital to democracy.”
The statement said that Reklai, one of Palau’s senior journalists, was being targeted simply for reporting on documents that were already in the public domain.
“She did not originate the information but responsibly conveyed what these documents suggested, raising questions about the current administration’s narrative on corporate tax contributions,” the council said.
‘Journalistic duty’ “Reporting on such information is a journalistic duty to ensure transparency in tax policies and government incentives impacting the private sector.
“The Island Times, by publishing these documents, has provided a platform for clarifying public understanding of the new PGST tax law’s impact on major corporations and the actual tax contributions of Surangel and Sons.
“These issues are clearly within the public’s right to know, and the council emphasises that media plays a crucial role in reporting such findings and promoting informed debate.
The council said it stood in solidarity with Reklai and all journalists who strived to find and uphold the truth.
“In a healthy democracy, a free and open press is essential for informed citizens and responsible governance.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.
Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.
Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.
Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”
On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.
Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?
Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza Video: Democracy Now!
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.
I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.
In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.
And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.
The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.
No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.
And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.
I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?
You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.
And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.
And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.
But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.
And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.
But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.
What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.
In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?
But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.
But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.
The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.
Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.
And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.
And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.
Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?
And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.
But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.
There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.
But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.
Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.
Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.
And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.
And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.
What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.
In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.
And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.
The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.
But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.
I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”
And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.
I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.
When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.
I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
