A leading Middle East analyst has pushed back against US President Donald Trump’s dismissal of the conclusion of his own national intelligence chief, who said in April that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said in an interview that Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, who issued the determination on Iran, “does not speak for herself” or her team alone.
“She speaks for all the intelligence agencies combined,” Bishara said.
“This intelligence is supposed to be sound. This is not just one person or one team saying something. It’s the entire intelligence community in the United States. He [Trump] would dismiss them? For what?
“For a lie by a rogue element called Benjamin Netanyahu, who has lied all his life, a con artist who is indicted for his crimes in Gaza? It’s just astounding.”
US senators slam Netanyahu Two US senators have also condemned Netanyahu while Israel continues to bomb and starve Gaza
Chris Van Hollen and Elizabeth Warren, two Democrats in the US Senate, have urged the world to pay attention to what Israel continues to do in Gaza amid its conflict with Iran.
“Don’t look away,” Van Hollen wrote on X. “Since the start of the Israel-Iran war 7 days ago, over 400 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, many shot while seeking food.
“It’s unconscionable that Netanyahu has not allowed international orgs to resume food delivery.”
Warren said the Israeli prime minister “may think no one will notice what he’s doing in Gaza while he bombs Iran”.
“People face starvation. 55,000 killed. Aid workers and doctors turned away at the border. Shooting at innocent people desperate for food. The world sees you, Benjamin Netanyahu,” she wrote.
Israel’s Prime Minister may think no one will notice what he’s doing in Gaza while he bombs Iran.
People face starvation. 55,000 killed. Aid workers and doctors turned away at the border. Shooting at innocent people desperate for food.
‘A trust gap’ The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, appealed for an end to the fighting between Israel and Iran, saying that Teheran had repeatedly stated that it was not seeking nuclear weapons.
“Let’s recognise there is a trust gap,” he said.
“The only way to bridge that gap is through diplomacy to establish a credible, comprehensive and verifiable solution — including full access to inspectors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], as the United Nations technical agency in this field.
“For all of that to be possible, I appeal for an end to the fighting and the return to serious negotiations.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres . . . “I appeal for an end to the fighting and the return to serious negotiations.” Image: UNweb screenshot APR
Meanwhile, in New Zealand hope for freedom for Palestinians remained high among a group of trauma-struck activists in Cairo.
In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo to Gaza to lend support.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 21, 2025.
Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark blames Cook Islands for crisis By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific presenter/producer Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after
View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president. The word was that the prime
Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Howe, PhD candidate in International Relations, Monash University A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive
‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Roche, PhD Candidate, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe University Sergey Dolgikh/Getty Images In Australia, there are around 235,000 emergency service volunteers who help communities respond and recover after natural disasters and other traumatic events. These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services
Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on
15 months after ‘flour massacre’ shock, Israel commits daily Gaza food aid killings BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem Kia ora koutou, I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground. At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total,
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China.
The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa’s questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing.
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
Helen Clark (middle) . . . Cook Islands caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. Image: RNZ Pacific montage
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Foreign Minister Winston Peters said had not been honoured.
Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters.
“There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand’s back,” Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday.
Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time.
“It is the Cook Islands government’s actions which have created this crisis,” she said.
Urgent need for dialogue “The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China.
Brown told Parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand had also entered deals with China that the Cook Islands was not “privy to or being consulted on”.
Prime Minister Mark Brown and China’s Ambassador to the Pacific Qian Bo last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/ Lydia Lewis
A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations.
Auckland University of Technology senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is “a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages”.
“Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,” Tekiteki said.
Misunderstanding of agreement Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point.
The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out.
“There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,” the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said.
“An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency”.
Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”.
He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.
However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”.
This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, is where Brown misstepped.
Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal “clandestine” which has “damaged” its relationship with New Zealand.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.
The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.
The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.
Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.
So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.
Australia closes embassy in Tehran
Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.
“At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”
Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”
Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.
Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.
Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.
Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.
About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.
Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).
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.
Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.
The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.
The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.
Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.
So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.
Australia closes embassy in Tehran
Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.
“At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”
Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”
Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.
Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.
Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.
Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.
About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.
Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.
Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.
This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).
Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.
The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.
But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.
Who’s trying to buy – and why?
Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.
First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.
They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.
Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.
And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.
ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Marco Curaba/Shutterstock
Defining national interest
For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.
One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.
Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.
There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.
This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.
And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.
The national interest checklist
On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.
If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?
The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.
The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:
national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
energy security and domestic gas supply
other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
the character of the investor
the complexity of regulation.
The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.
This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.
The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.
All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.
It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.
Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.
The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.
Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.
This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).
Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.
The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.
But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.
Who’s trying to buy – and why?
Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.
First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.
They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.
Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.
And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.
ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Marco Curaba/Shutterstock
Defining national interest
For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.
One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.
Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.
There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.
This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.
And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.
The national interest checklist
On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.
If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?
The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.
The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:
national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
energy security and domestic gas supply
other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
the character of the investor
the complexity of regulation.
The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.
This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.
The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.
All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.
It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.
Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.
These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services and other rescue organisations.
As natural disasters grow more frequent and severe with climate change we rely on these volunteers now more than ever. Yet volunteer numbers are shrinking.
Our new research reveals an important but often hidden toll from natural disasters – the mental health of emergency service volunteers, who risk physical and emotional burnout.
In our study, we interviewed 32 Victorian State Emergency Service (SES) and Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers. They told us they’re often not getting adequate support.
Exposure to death
Death is something commonly hidden behind clinical curtains. But for emergency service volunteers, exposure to dying and death is just part of the job. Death on jobs arrives unpredictably – on roads, in burned homes, after storms, floods and suicides.
Given their work often takes place in the local community, victims are frequently known to the volunteer, which can further complicate grief. As one participant told us:
You’re bound to come across someone you know, or someone you love at some point […] in a bad situation.
Another recounted a colleague’s experience:
It wasn’t until the next day that she found out that she actually knew the deceased person, but didn’t recognise them.
Volunteers described often being first on scene to assist but not fully prepared for what they find. They recounted experiences including retrieving children who had drowned, watching people dying on the roadside, and finding burnt and maimed human remains.
These encounters provoke intense emotional responses, from shock and sadness to feeling powerless and vulnerable. For many, feelings of helplessness and grief reverberate into everyday life. As one volunteer told us:
I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place […] having flashbacks […] struggling to hold emotions and do my day job.
A lack of formal support
We identified over-reliance on informal team support and individual resilience to cope with difficult emotions.
Structured debriefs depended on leadership and team dynamics. Leaders with “tough it out” mindsets unintentionally perpetuated stigma around seeking help. One participant explained:
People generally will just sit there and not talk about how they feel […] They’re feeling ashamed or embarrassed.
The mindset of some teams seems to be that those who can’t manage the demands of the job should leave. One volunteer said:
It’s mostly very hard and tough. But if you’re going to survive in the game, you gotta be hard.
Support programs exist, but often focus on major disasters rather than the more everyday jobs. Referral depends on leaders flagging those seen as at-risk or individual volunteers asking for support. One participant explained:
We do a debrief with peer support, but some people put on a brave face […] There needs to be more follow up.
What’s more, support is sometimes difficult to access. One participant, a team leader, explained what happened when a volunteer in their team wasn’t coping:
I called the mechanisms that [we] were told that we need to access. I’ve got somebody here that’s suicidal, nobody escalated it. I still hadn’t heard back six hours later.
Importantly, our findings also highlighted that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. For some, peer support is a lifeline for processing experiences and building resilience, but not for others.
Five women killed. And the peer support was all over us. You know, we got to the stage where it was ridiculous. We’ve had enough, we don’t want this. It re-traumatises people who want to move on.
Talking to emergency service volunteers from only two organisations in one jurisdiction may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings to other regions, countries or cultures.
However, Victoria does have the second largest number of emergency service volunteers in Australia (behind New South Wales).
Emergency service volunteers are extremely proud and passionate about serving their community and show up with care, calm and strength. But our findings show this comes at a personal cost, especially without the right supports.
Volunteer exposure to death and dying must be recognised as a serious occupational health and safety issue, not just an emotional side effect of the job. We need proactive, not reactive reform if we want to recruit, retain and protect the people we count on in a crisis.
Legislators and organisations should work collaboratively with emergency service volunteers to develop and implement responsive and consistent support services, culture and leadership.
Without targeted, systemic and consistent support, we risk the future of our community-based emergency response. It’s time to protect those who protect us.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive its US-made Virginia-class submarines on schedule from 2032.
AUKUS supporters suggest the review is not overly concerning – they point out governments typically review major programs after taking office. As they note, the UK Labour government did the same when it commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove to review AUKUS in 2024. Moreover, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently reviewing AUKUS.
Crucially, however, not all reviews are created equal. Given the US assessment is, according to US officials, being conducted to ensure alignment with the imperatives of “America first”, there is a risk the US will not supply Australia with the Virgina-class submarines it feels it requires to deter China. The UK reviews, on the other hand, did not and do not carry such risks.
The findings of the Lovegrove review remain confidential, but have been shared with Canberra and were incorporated into the UK government’s recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Defence Select Committee is yet to report, but being public, its findings are likely to generate further debate in Australia.
Why are the UK reviews different?
The Defence Select Committee review, launched independently of the government, is an accountability mechanism that scrutinises progress but lacks the power to set policy.
Meanwhile, the Lovegrove review was never intended to question AUKUS, as its terms of reference made clear. Instead, its focus was more on what progress has been made so far and any barriers that might inhibit future success.
There was never any real chance the Lovegrove review would end or amend the UK’s participation in AUKUS, because it has widespread support across mainstream British politics. In foreign and security policy terms, cross-party consensus is the norm in the UK.
However, in the case of AUKUS, two specific factors stand out.
First, AUKUS provides a welcome means to share the burden on a project the UK was already pursuing. Even before AUKUS was announced, the UK had initiated plans for its next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines, awarding initial design contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth £85 million (A$170 million).
Second, AUKUS has been a crucial component of the UK’s post-Brexit re-emergence. Coming after a period in which Brexit negotiations consumed the British government, it provided important substance to “Global Britain” and its Indo-Pacific tilt.
AUKUS’s cross-party appeal might initially seem strange, given its close association with Boris Johnson’s Brexiteer government. After all, with its “Britain Reconnected” plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has been keen to demonstrate how it differs from its Conservative predecessors. This most recent example comes with the SDR’s NATO-first approach, which some interpreted as a sharp break.
However, this is a difference in style rather than substance. Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government had announced Britain had delivered the tilt and would focus on consolidating its position.
In other words, it was making no new commitments. The SDR does not amend this position. It makes clear that “NATO first does not mean NATO only”. This means continuing support for agreements such as AUKUS, which, according to the review, are crucial to shaping the global security environment.
Whether Britain has the capability to shape the global security environment is a question the SDR addresses, if implicitly, by acknowledging the “hollowing out” of the UK’s armed forces. Reconstituting Britain’s armed forces is consequently a key focus of Starmer’s government, which sees rearmament as a route to reindustrialisation.
Militarisation as central to ‘rebirth’
In this rebirth, the government is focusing heavily on the arms industry as a means to bring well-paid, high-skilled jobs to post-industrial parts of the country. There is debate about whether this is the best way to create jobs and growth, but the Starmer government has gone all-in on the strategy.
Indeed, one of the most notable outcomes of the SDR is that the UK plans to invest substantial sums in its fleet of attack submarines, as it plans to go from seven Astute-class boats to 12 AUKUS-class ones.
This ambition may provide some comfort to Australian observers as it indicates the scale of the UK’s commitment to AUKUS. Still, achieving the goal will require a significant increase in industrial capacity, as Britain will need to produce a new submarine every 18 months. The record of the UK government on major capital projects suggests this is a heroic ambition.
For example, the last three Astute-class boats to be commissioned took between 130 and 132 months to build. The sixth and seventh boats of the nearly 25-year-old program are yet to enter service. Moreover, even the active Astute boats are beset by problems; in the first half of 2024, none of the five in-service boats completed an operational deployment due to maintenance issues.
So, while in the context of the US review, Britain’s commitment is likely welcomed, any comfort must be tempered by the expectation that problems will also likely emanate from Britain.
Tom Howe is a Young Professionals Member of the AIIA.
BEARING WITNESS:By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem
Kia ora koutou,
I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.
At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total, a significant number while seeking aid. 15 months after the shocking “flour massacre”, Israeli forces are now committing daily massacres against Gazan residents desperately seeking food due to Israel’s policy of forced starvation. These ongoing war crimes have been met with indifference, justification, and ongoing impunity from global leaders.
*
Jerusalem’s Old City markets remain closed for the seventh consecutive day after restrictions were imposed under the pretext of “wartime emergency”. Meanwhile, across the besieged West Bank the occupation forces continue demolishing homes in Tulkarm and Jenin refugee camps, where more than 40,000 residents have been displaced by Israel’s months-long “military operation”.
Israeli soldiers occupying houses south of Jenin as military barracks, embedding themselves among Palestinian civilians as they have for several days in Al Khalil/Hebron.
Around two-dozen young men detained in Asakra village south-east of Bethlehem, and several more in Laban village, south of Nablus. A young man, Moataz, 22, was executed by Israeli forces in his home village of Wolja west of Bethlehem. Movement of ambulances has been affected by gasoline shortages in Bethlehem. Forces invaded Plata camp in East Nablus for the second day in a row.
*
Israel bombed the outskirts of Shabaa town, in southern Lebanon, yet another violation of ceasefire agreements.
*
An Iranian missile hit Beersheba’s Soroka hospital in southern Israel last night, with no resulting casualties — Iran claiming it targeted a nearby military site. Outrage at the war crime has highlighted widespread double-standards across Israeli society and globally. Israeli forces have destroyed, bombed, or damaged 38 hospitals in Gaza over their 20-month genocidal war on the enclave, with the World Health Organisation recording around 700 attacks on Gazan healthcare facilities in that same period. Israeli residents have erected tents, transforming an underground parking lot into a bomb shelter.
*
Several more retaliatory volleys of Iranian missiles targeted the Israeli territories throughout the day, as heavy Israeli assaults continued on Iranian territories. Israel’s reported death toll has risen to 24, with Iran’s rising to 639.
Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room
Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling
Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that
A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the
6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting
Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’ Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.
Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the
Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and
Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized
Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the
New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if
A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local
Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’ SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo
The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room
Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling
Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that
A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the
6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting
Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’ Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.
Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the
Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and
Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized
Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the
New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if
A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local
Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’ SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo
The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room Watt presumably had to woo hardest: Western Australia’s miners.
Last year, the WA mining lobby mounted an ultimately successful campaign opposing proposed changes to national environment laws, and the plan to set up an environmental protection authority. State premier Roger Cook also lobbied Prime Minister Anthony Albanese directly.
Watt has pledged to revive the reform process and on Thursday claimed a compromise could be reached. The existing laws, he said, are “not working for the environment, and they are not working for business”.
Whether his efforts will be enough to overcome the scepticism of the mining industry remains to be seen. These companies have influence – and they will use it if they see new laws as a threat.
The mining state
The mining industry dominates WA economically, politically and socially. WA’s mining sector is substantially larger than the mining interests in any other Australian state. Underground lie huge reserves of iron ore, gas, gold, lithium and many other resources.
The leaders of WA mining companies see themselves, by and large, as doing economically vital work.
I have interviewed many WA mining executives for my doctorate, which is currently underway. One clear common narrative emerged: they saw mining as a national good. They believed their companies brought wealth and prosperity to communities, built infrastructure, and funnelled money into state and federal treasuries.
The justification is powerful. It underpins the way those in the industry see their work – and how they respond to any threat, perceived or otherwise.
It also dates back over a century. The link between WA resources and prosperity originates from the 1890s WA gold rush, which transformed the fortunes of the state. This self image has been nurtured through successive resource booms, from gold to iron ore to natural gas and more gold.
Many company executives see any duplication of environmental approvals as time-consuming, unproductive and economically damaging. A 2023 WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry report suggested “green tape” (approval delays) was threatening 40% of mining proposals in the pipeline.
Miners and their political backers often frame the industry as environmentally positive, particularly for resources vital to the green energy transition such as lithium, rare earth elements and – more controversially – gas.
Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King – who is West Australian – regularly draws this link. As she said in 2023:
let me be clear, the global clean energy transition will need more mining, not less […] the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.
WA miners are represented by well-organised and well-resourced lobbying bodies such as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and the Minerals Council of Australia.
These groups maintain relationships with politicians at both state and federal levels, regardless of which party is in power.
Broadly, their goals are to promote the continued expansion of resource projects (minerals, oil and gas) under conditions most advantageous to industry interests.
Mining companies use these industry lobby groups to support or critique government policy and push for changes. They exert influence through targeted lobbying, close relationships with elected officials and political candidates, and direct engagement with federal processes.
What happens when the sector sees a potential threat from policymakers in Canberra? Often, the mining companies unify against it.
For example, WA miners were prominent in the 2010 campaign against efforts by the Rudd government to introduce a super profits tax on mining.
Why WA miners oppose nature law reform
A tax is one thing. But what did the WA miners see as the key problems in the environmental reforms?
One issue was a perceived contradiction between the federal government’s intention to streamline developmental approvals and introduce a federal Environmental Protection Agency, while failing to deal with existing duplication between state and federal processes.
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies lobby group gave another reason in a submission to government: the proposed independence of the EPA would remove the discretionary power of the minister.
Rather than an independent federal EPA, they pushed for a model similar to the WA version – the advice of which the minister can overrule. The group also warned the laws would impede the global competitiveness of the mining industry and hinder investment.
The state government echoed these statements, calling the reforms an overreach that would stifle economic development.
This alignment of government and industry messaging shows how closely their interests are intertwined.
Premier Roger Cook leaves no ambiguity about this. Ahead of this year’s WA and federal elections, Cook warned the “latte sippers” over east:
do not for a moment think that we will stand by idly and allow you to damage our economy because, ultimately, it will damage your standard of living.
Is a deal possible?
Across Australia, there is broad support for environmental law reform, because the current national laws are seen as not fit for purpose.
Murray Watt came to the role of environment minister with a reputation as a fixer. The question now is, what will he trade to get the miners on side?
The industry will be cautious and will insist on much more detail about any changes. It’s possible a deal could be struck. But we can expect to continue to see very strong pushback if Watt tries to expand federal powers into what is seen as state responsibilities.
The industry will also expect greater federal resourcing for delivery of timely approvals. Nationally important industries don’t like to wait.
Diane Dowdell is a PhD Candidate in the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) within the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. She was the recipient of an industry scholarship from Newcrest Mining for her PhD research. She works for SLR Consulting Pty Ltd. Diane is a fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ).
The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.
Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.
If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.
Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.
There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.
If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.
The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.
Divided opinions Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.
On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.
Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”. They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.
In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.
The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself. The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.
There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development. Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads. If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.
Iranian news presenter Sahar Emami during the Israeli attack on state television which killed three media workers . . . Killing journalists is both an Israeli speciality and a war crime. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Is regime change in Iran possible? So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime. Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said: “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.
“Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . . A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”
Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.
As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent. This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.
I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment. Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag. Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.
Some others demur:
“The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16. “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”
To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous). One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:
“Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.
They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”
Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse? Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.
Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.
The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.
How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?
Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence. If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran. And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them.
The findings, released today, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to begin in December.
For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of ten people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were “very concerned” about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80% of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight.
The trial’s preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people’s ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources.
From facial recognition to hand movement recognition
The social media ban for under 16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide “alternative age assurance methods” for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID.
The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme – a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people’s ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition.
According to the preliminary findings of the trial, “age assurance can be done in Australia”.
The trial’s project director, Tony Allen, said “there are no significant technological barriers” to assuring people’s ages online. He added the solutions are “technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online”.
However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence.
High error rates
Yesterday the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies “repeatedly misidentified” children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children’s ages “within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases”. This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked.
This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade.
The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones.
These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available – Yoti – has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone’s age by 3.1 years on average.
This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked.
Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check.
This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia’s retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check.
It’s also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was “immature” and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security.
Outstanding questions
We don’t yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders’ ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people’s ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues.
And it’s not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom?
There are other outstanding questions. What’s stopping someone who’s under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals.
It’s also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken “reasonable steps” to prevent under 16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered “reasonable” is yet to be clearly defined.
Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government’s trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don’t have all the answers they need.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the international Association for Information Science and Technology.
Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools.
About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting consequences. Research suggests students who are bullied are at an increased risk of mental health problems and self-harm.
On Friday, submissions close for the federal government’s rapid review into school bullying. Here, we suggest six key areas on which governments, schools and education authorities need to focus to re-imagine Australia’s approach to tackling bullying.
At the moment, there is no clear, consistent definition of bullying in Australian schools. Nor are there consistent policies.
This naturally leads to confusion about current best practice to both prevent bullying and support students who have been bullied.
For example, there are several definitions of cyberbullying between the different states and territories.
2. Consistent data to track bullying
Australia also has no nationally consistent approach to track or measure bullying and cyberbullying.
This means it is impossible to say whether bullying is getting worse or better – or if certain parts of the country are more successfully addressing it.
So we need metrics to better track, analyse, report and respond to bullying incidents across schools, regions, states and territories.
For years, researchers have noted schools themselves also need accurate data to analyse, monitor and evaluate the degree to which an intervention is effective.
A whole-school approach sees anti-bullying efforts as the responsibility of everyone connected to a school. School leaders, teachers, support staff, students, families and the wider community are all expected to promote safety and inclusion.
Addressing bullying should see strategies implemented across multiple locations, including the classroom, wider school and home environments.
This goes beyond simply dealing with individual bullying incidents as they arise.
Research also suggests schools should focus on proactive, non-punitive strategies and a positive school culture. This includes clear procedures to report bullying, effective education programs, and establishing consistent classroom and school rules.
If bullying occurs, schools can respond with a restorative approach, which focuses on repairing harm done to relationships.
As part of the whole-school approach, we also need to make sure schools are teaching social and emotional skills. This includes how to identify and manage emotions as well as communicating and cooperating with others.
While it is part of the Australian Curriculum, research shows social and emotional skills are not always taught using evidence-based, formal approaches.
A large body of research demonstrates that schools which teach social and emotional learning across all aspects of school engagement, report higher academic achievement, lower rates of bullying, improved student wellbeing, and stronger connections between students and adults.
In part, this is because these approaches empower students to take ownership of their behaviour.
Teachers play a pivotal role in making sure all students feel safe and supported at school, helping children and young people to understand and manage their emotions.
A 2014 study found teachers who had participated in anti-bullying training were able to provide this support more effectively.
School staff should receive consistent, culturally responsive training, so they are equipped with the most current and effective ways to support all students.
6. Give students an active role
We should also look at ways to give students a greater role in shaping anti-bullying policies.
Research shows when students are included in decisions that affect them, it increases their engagement with learning and motivation at school.
Along with helping to make policies, students can also be involved in peer-mentoring programs and leading campaigns to raise awareness about respectful relationships. This can create a sense of shared ownership for anti-bullying interventions.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.
The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.
Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:
an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.
However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.
So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?
How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?
Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.
The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.
While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.
Currently, there are also twocases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.
Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.
So, is a new tribunal necessary?
Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.
Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.
And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.
Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?
The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.
At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.
A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.
Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.
Will this special tribunal be more effective?
Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.
Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.
That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.
It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.
The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.
Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.
For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:
must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.
Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?
Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria 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.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export.
‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history. There was the American–Algerian War (1785–1795); and the Barbary Wars (1801-1805,1815), featuring the heroic re-seizure and scuttling by fire of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbor in 1804. Then there was the reverse colonisation (aka ‘liberation’, ‘democratization’) of a small corner of Africa from 1822, leading to Liberia’s independence in 1862.
In the 1846, there was the small matter of the United States’ invasion of Mexico, resulting in the 1848 annexation of half of Mexico’s territory. ‘America’ brought Democracy to California, through annexation. And, in 1898, the United States appropriated Spain’s remaining worldwide empire, including the Philippines. And some other territories, including Hawaii. Upon his inauguration as the 47th President, Donald Trump explicitly invoked the memory of President William McKinley, America’s most notorious annexor of foreign territory.
And in 1889: “Three American warships then entered the Apia harbor and prepared to engage the three German warships found there. Before any shots were fired, a typhoon wrecked both the American and German ships.” After ten years of military/political stalemate – known as the Second Samoan Civil War – the Samoan ‘assets’ were split between the United States, the German Second Reich, and the United Kingdom. (The UK traded its share with Germany. Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga, certain areas in the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar.)
America’s imperial ‘burden’ in the last 125 years
Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden was written in 1899; “a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country”.
America’s empire today is partly formal, though mostly informal, with various grades of informality. Indeed, the recent acknowledgement by the European Union that it has free-ridden on the United States for its defence indicates that the United States has had a significant degree of imperial control over Europe; hegemony manifesting as control over foreign policy.
The name ‘America’ itself is an imperial grab. America is the name for two continents, yet even the Canadians call the United States ‘America’, and its citizens ‘Americans’. American exceptionalism represents the weaponisation of democracy. Democracy is packaged as ‘Democracy’, a secular faith like ‘Communism’ or ‘Economic Liberalism’; a faith which must be proselytised, spread across the world as some kind of holy or secular crusade.
The remaining territories on the ‘autocratic’ ‘Dark Side’ – ie territories not subject to United States’ ‘protection’ – are mainly in continental Asia: especially West Asia (much of which is imperialistically called the ‘Middle East’, which extends to North Africa), North Asia, and East Asia. Though there is also very much a contest for South Asia; a contest, which if successful for the White Man’s force, will bring secular Hindi along with secular Judaism fully into the imperial fold of secular Christianity. (We note that the labels Hindu and Jew have long been name-tags which confuse and conflate religion with ethnicity. So it may soon be with Christianity; with top-tier Christians behaving very much as top-tier Jews behave today, as supremacist gift-givers and bomb-throwers.)
We should note that Catholic Christianity is now uneasy about this crusader culture, having been the main perpetrator of such culture nearly a millennium ago. And Orthodox Christianity is even more uneasy. In its North Asian (ie Russian) form, Orthodox Christianity – like Islam, and Chinese atheist capitalism – is a target of the present Christian Soldiers, not a collaborator. (The decline of the Christian East came with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ostensibly a western invasion force going to re-recover the ‘Holy Land’, instead that Crusade turned on Orthodox Christian Constantinople. The result was a weak Latin empire in the east; easy prey for the Ottoman forces which in 1453 created a Muslim empire in West Asia and Southeast Europe; an empire that lasted until 1918.)
The modern American-led crusading mentality represents a schism of Protestant Evangelism (which dates back in particular to the Calvinist side of the sixteenth century Reformation) and Secular Liberalism. Protestant Evangelism (increasingly known today as Christian Nationalism) is the imperial currency of today’s Republican Party, whereas Secular Liberalism is the imperial currency of today’s Democratic Party (although secular Neoliberalism is presently teaming up with the Evangelists). What both have in common is a will to impose themselves upon the rest of the world. And to produce and export lots of big guns, military hardware; making money, and making American jobs.
There are some strange bedfellows. As these two American socio-cultural Gods – Republican and Democrat; protagonist and antagonist, and vice versa – have battled out their Americanisms on a world stage, we have seen a significant posse of very rich devout Economic Liberals taking the side of the Christian Nationalists. So do a number of working-class and other disempowered former ballot-box ‘Leftists’, who wish to cast an anti-establishment vote but don’t know which way to turn. This dabbling with new right-radicalism (not unlike leftist dabbling in New Zealand in 1984 with the recently late Bob Jones’ New Zealand Party) follows the slow but comprehensive gutting of the Left-project that was so buoyant in the 1960s and 1970s.
The name Christian Nationalism is a misnomer; a better name is Christian Extranationalism. Rather than being an internationalist movement – internationalism is a liberal concept – this is a movement to perpetuate and extend the global domination of American culture, through imperial merchant capitalism. The United States was born out of British merchant capitalism (and New York out of Dutch merchant capitalism); its values and institutions reflect those of eighteenth-century western Europe. Just as the British exacted tribute from their American colonies; imperial America seeks to extract tribute through the ‘negotiation’ of asymmetric ‘deals’. Are we today witnessing an American Napoleon?
Money, Lies and God: by Katherine Stewart (2025)
Katherine Stewart this year has written about the new eclectic rightwing coalition in the United States that is coalescing under the name of Christian Nationalism. Though I’ve only read the introduction so far, the book has a real strength, in particular in identifying five components of this new new-right coalition: funders, thinkers, sergeants, infantry, power-players.
Of particular interest to me is the “out-sourced” relationship between the funders and the thinkers. While Stewart emphasises the ‘thinkers’ in the well-funded (and mostly conservative) ‘Think Tanks’, the real issue is that of ‘selective truth’, in the Darwinian sense of ‘selection’. Our ‘intellectual’ careerists compete to publish ‘truths’, and the truths which prevail will be the truths purchased by the ‘funders’, given that the funders have most of the funds.
This kind of relationship with truth is somewhat like a ‘court-of-law’, where commonly two ‘truths’ are subject to a contest in which one will be declared ‘the winner’. Not uncommonly, both rival ‘truths’ are at least partially false, and there may be other (possibly truer) truths that are not even ‘on the table’. Evidence represents a part of the court process, but by no means the whole of that process. The truth-relationship between the funders and thinkers is a corrupt form of the ‘law court’ model; the more corrupt the more wealth the conservative funders control. Academic careers – indeed scientists’ careers – are built on perpetuating narratives acceptable to their patrons.
While Money, Lies and God represents a prescient and useful analysis, ultimately it is part of the problem. It represents one side of the great American divide calling out the other side. The process of belligerent finger-pointing – between, in American language, ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ – is the bigger problem. Why bother talking about the world when you can talk about half of America instead? Indeed, too many American intellectuals talk and write about the United States as if America is the World; a kind of mental imperialism. (Another critique of American ‘Christian Nationalism’ can be found in a recent Upfront episode on Al Jazeera: The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States.)
The problem of American imperialism belongs to both sides of the Divide; indeed, it is the Secular Liberalism of what has been exposed as the tone-deaf establishment – the Blinkens, Bidens and Nods – who represented the moral hypocrisy of America’s imperial democratic gift. (The sheer stupidity of the Biden re-election campaign is documented in Original Sin, 2025, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.) That is, the belief that America created modern Democracy, and that those parts of the world – especially the ‘western’ world – have special rights accruing to them because they have been awarded the ‘tick of Democracy’. These countries – and only these countries – have the “right to defend themselves”, the right to make war (as ‘defence through attack’), and the “right to possess nuclear weapons”.
Contemporary American imperialism is mainly a ‘West on East’ phenomenon; Asia is the target. Ukraine and Anatolia (Türkiye) are border territories between Europe and Asia. Palestine, perhaps too, given its location on the Mediterranean Sea; though the Mediterranean littoral, from Istanbul to Morocco, is better understood as West Asia, not Europe. Iran is unambiguously a part of Asia. What we are seeing at present is nothing less than a Euro-American invasion of Asia. Imperialism. Nuclear imperialism; geopolitical imperialism; cultural imperialism. The gift that keeps on taking.
Note on the boundary between Europe and Asia
We should note that the core geopolitical boundary between Europe and Asia was set by Charlemagne in around the year 800; representing the border between the predominancies of Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity (harking back to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires). There are other important historic geopolitical boundaries in Eurasia, of course, such as the eastern and southern borders of Orthodox Christianity; and the eastern and northern borders of Islam-dominated territories. Indeed there is perpetual tension on the Pakistan-India border.
The principal medieval-era departure from that Charlemagne-set geopolitical boundary was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which peaked in territory in the fifteenth century. The first significant modern-era fudge of that geopolitical boundary was the West’s acquisition of Greece over the long 19th century (essentially 1820s to 1920s). The Great World War started in 1914 very much as an East-West border conflict in the Balkans of southeast Europe. After a week or two of fudging, the anglosphere took the Eastern side; siding with Russia over Austria and Germany.
Post World War Two, the next main geopolitical border fudges were the ‘settlements’ which placed a number of mainly Catholic East European countries into Russia’s orb; and which placed Türkiye (then Turkey) into NATO. The current twenty first century fudge is one of European expansion, placing a number of predominantly Orthodox territories – most notably Ukraine – firmly into the European political realm.
This longstanding geopolitical boundary contrasts with the widely-accepted geographic boundary; the latter – based more on physical geography and ethnicity than on faith-culture – passes along the Ural and Caucasus mountain chains, and through the lower Volga River, the Black Sea and the Bosporus/Dardanelle channels. Geopolitically, Russia, Belarus and Türkiye should be understood today to be Asian countries; indeed, the lower Dnieper River and line of the military trenches in Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk constitute the current geopolitical boundary between West and East; between Europe and Asia. And the lines within Eretz Israel – separating Israel from Palestine – also represent geopolitical borders; and American geopolitical encroachment on Asia.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images
As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the Australian Sports Foundation (ASF), has launched a new joint fundraising initiative allowing Australians to make tax-deductible donations directly to Australia’s Olympians and Paralympians.
The ASF is an “Item 1” Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) and is the only organisation in Australia that allows a donor to claim a tax deduction for philanthropic donations to sport.
This is because sport is not currently eligible for either DGR or charitable status under Australian law.
But is this new joint fundraising initiative a gold medal idea for our athletes, or one that falls short of a podium finish?
Aussies tax payers and Olympic dreams
The new initiative, named the “Aspiring Australian Olympian Funding program”, means individual donations of A$2 or more made through the ASF are tax-deductible.
Australians can direct funds to a specific athlete, coach or official selected to participate in representative, elite or high performance sport in the Olympic/Paralympic program (summer and winter).
Ahead of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, more than 30 Australian athletes (from disciplines such as alpine skiing, bobsleigh and figure skating) have signed up to use the platform.
The ASF’s 2023 “Running on Empty” report found many of Australia’s elite athletes were under significant financial pressure: 46% of those over the age of 18 were earning less than $23,000 per year. This places them below the poverty line at $489 a week.
The report also found 67% of elite athletes said their financial struggles affected their parents and support networks. Also, 42% of elite athletes aged 18-34 reported they were suffering poor mental health as a result of their financial predicament.
The report also found the costs of training, equipment, travel and accommodation continued to rise, resulting in many questioning the sustainability of elite sport funding models both here and abroad.
Pros and cons
The new funding program’s use of tax incentives as a funding carrot is good in principle, but there are potential unintended consequences.
This includes athletes being pitted against one another: there is a danger the athletes best skilled in marketing and public relations will receive more funding.
The current economic climate doesn’t bode well for the program. Many Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures, which means a lot of people may not be able to donate even if they want to.
Also, what happens if an athlete who benefits from the program is injured or found to be a drug cheat, and can’t compete? Can a donor request a refund?
Finally, taxpayers who have the most capacity to donate are likely high income earners, some of whom may donate to sport entities already. Now, their donations will be subsidised by the tax system.
Some alternative ideas
In the United Kingdom, National Lottery revenue plays a significant role in funding Olympic and Paralympic sports. Administered by UK Sport (the UK’s equivalent of the ASC) funds from the lottery are directed to high performance sports programs and athletes.
Another idea is to redirect a portion of government taxes collected from sports betting, which could be lucrative given Australia’s love of sports gambling.
The federal government could offer a further incentive by matching peoples’ donations dollar for dollar.
As we direct funds to athletes, we need also think about the potential tax impact for them. Will the funds they receive be considered income and be taxed? The government could consider making the payment to the athlete tax free.
If we are going to succeed on the world stage, especially as the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games approach, we need to financially support our athletes so they can focus on representing their country.
Michelle O’Shea receives funding from the Olympic Studies Centre.
Connie Vitale receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. She is affiliated with the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.
Robert B Whait receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program, Financial Literacy Australia (now Ecstra Foundation), ANZ Bank, and the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). He is affiliated with the Tax Institute of Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.
When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.
In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).
Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?
How the GST carve-up is supposed to work
The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.
That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.
But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.
WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Holding onto the mineral wealth
During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.
But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.
The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.
Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.
Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.
No one worse off?
To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.
It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.
To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.
This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.
A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.
The system is not working as intended
The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.
But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.
This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.
Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.
An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.
Saul Eslake 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.
When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.
In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).
Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?
How the GST carve-up is supposed to work
The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.
That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.
But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.
WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Holding onto the mineral wealth
During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.
But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.
The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.
Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.
Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.
No one worse off?
To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.
It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.
To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.
This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.
A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.
The system is not working as intended
The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.
But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.
This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.
Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.
An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.
Saul Eslake 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.
Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.
But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.
As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.
Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.
What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.
New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.
How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?
Austerity and managerialism
In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.
Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.
In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.
We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.
Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.
But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.
Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964. Getty Images
Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.
In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.
In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.
The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.
This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.
What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.
What are budgets for?
Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.
Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.
Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.
For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.
But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.
From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.
To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.
Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?
Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.
Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.
But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.
As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.
Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.
What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.
New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.
How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?
Austerity and managerialism
In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.
Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.
In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.
We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.
Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.
But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.
Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964. Getty Images
Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.
In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.
In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.
The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.
This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.
What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.
What are budgets for?
Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.
Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.
Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.
For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.
But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.
From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.
To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.
Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?
Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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 Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney
Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if they’re eligible for vaccination.
Invasive meningococcal disease is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. Invasive means the infection spreads rapidly through the blood and into your organs.
Early emergency medical care is important for survival and to reduce the chance of long-term complications. Even in those who survive, up to 30% suffer permanent cognitive, physical or psychological disabilities.
Thankfully, vaccines are available to protect against it.
The bacteria does not easily pass from person to person by breathing the same air or sharing drinks or food – and the bacteria do not survive well outside the human body.
It is spread through close and prolonged contact of oral and respiratory secretions, such as saliva, from others who live in your household or through deep, intimate kissing.
There is no way to know if you carry the bacteria, as carriers don’t have symptoms.
Who is most at risk?
Meningococcal disease can affect anyone.
But infants under one, adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 years, and people without a spleen or who are immunosuppressed are at a higher risk of developing invasive disease.
Meningococcal disease notifications by age and sex
Although sensitive to common antibiotics such as penicillin, the meningococcal bacteria can cause severe infection and death in a matter of hours. The difficulty in picking up meningococcal disease early is that, early on, it can mimic common viral illnesses that people would recover from without any treatment.
Most people experience a sudden onset of fever, difficulty looking at light and/or a rash. The rash is non-blanching, meaning it doesn’t fade when you apply pressure to it. But early in the illness, it can start out as a blanching rash that fades with pressure.
Young infants may also become irritable, have difficulty waking up, or refuse to feed.
The bacteria usually causes a meningitis – inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord – or a bloodstream infection, called septicemia or sepsis. But sometimes it can cause an infection of the bone, lungs (pneumonia) or eyes (conjunctivitis).
Protection against different strains
There are 13 types of meningococcal bacteria that cause invasive disease, but types A, B, C, W and Y cause the most illness.
The rapid disease progression occurs because the bacteria has a sugar capsule which allows it to evade the immune system.
But each of the 13 types has its own unique capsule. So immunity to one strain does not offer immunity to other strains.
Currently, two types of vaccines are available: a vaccine that protects against meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY); and another vaccine that protects against meningococcal B.
The vaccines are manufactured differently and therefore have different mechanisms of protection.
The MenACWY vaccine uses parts of the sugar capsule within each of the bacteria and joins them to a protein. This is called a “conjugate vaccine” and allows for a better immune response, especially in young infants.
The MenB vaccine does not contain the sugar capsule but includes four other proteins from the surface of the meningococcal B bacteria.
The MenACWY vaccine is funded under the National Immunisation Program, and given for free, to all infants aged 12 months. There is also a free catch-up program for teens in Year 10.
The MenB vaccine recommended for all infants aged six weeks or more. But it’s only available for free to infants in South Australia and Queensland, through state-based programs, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants nationally, via the National Immunisation Program.
Parents of non-Indigenous infants in other states will pay around A$220–270 for two doses of the MenB vaccine.
The MenB vaccine is highly protective against invasive disease for the person who receives the vaccine. But it does not eradicate the bacteria from the throat, nor does it decrease spread of the bacteria to others.
Reducing meningococcal disease
Other people who are at high risk of meningococcal exposure are also recommended for vaccination: people without a functional spleen, those with certain immunocompromising conditions, certain travellers and some lab workers.
The MenB vaccine has also been shown to lower rates of another bacterial infection, gonorrhoea, by 33–47%. This is because the gonococcal bacteria is closely related and shares similar surface protein structures to meningococcal bacteria.
The Northern Territory began offering the vaccine to people aged 14 to 19 last year as part of a research trial.
Further research is underway in Australia to better understand the meningococcal bacteria, its capability to evade the immune system and the cross protection against gonorrhoea.
Archana Koirala has worked on research funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW health. She is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.
