Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tu Nguyen, PhD Candidate, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Winter is here, along with cold days and the inevitable seasonal surge in respiratory viruses.
But it’s not only the sniffles we need to worry about. Heart attacks and strokes also tend to rise during the winter months.
In new research out this week we show one reason why.
Our study shows catching common respiratory viruses raises your short-term risk of a heart attack or stroke. In other words, common viruses, such as those that cause flu and COVID, can trigger them.
Wait, viruses can trigger heart attacks?
Traditional risk factors such as smoking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and lack of exercise are the main reasons for heart attacks and strokes.
And rates of heart attacks and strokes can rise in winter for a number of reasons. Factors such as low temperature, less physical activity, more time spent indoors – perhaps with indoor air pollutants – can affect blood clotting and worsen the effects of traditional risk factors.
But our new findings build on those from other researchers to show how respiratory viruses can also be a trigger.
The theory is respiratory virus infections set off a heart attack or stroke, rather than directly cause them. If traditional risk factors are like dousing a house in petrol, the viral infection is like the matchstick that ignites the flame.
Think of a viral infection as the matchstick that ignites the flame, leading to a heart attack or stroke. anokato/Shutterstock
For healthy, young people, a newer, well-kept house is unlikely to spontaneously combust. But an older or even abandoned house with faulty electric wiring needs just a spark to lead to a blaze.
People who are particularly vulnerable to a heart attack or stroke triggered by a respiratory virus are those with more than one of those traditional risk factors, especially older people.
What we did and what we found
Our team conducted a meta-analysis (a study of existing studies) to see which respiratory viruses play a role in triggering heart attacks and strokes, and the strength of the link. This meant studying more than 11,000 scientific papers, spanning 40 years of research.
Overall, the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) were the main triggers.
If you catch the flu, we found the risk of a heart attack goes up almost 5.4 times and a stroke by 4.7 times compared with not being infected. The danger zone is short – within the first few days or weeks – and tapers off with time after being infected.
Catching COVID can also trigger heart attacks and strokes, but there haven’t been enough studies to say exactly what the increased risk is.
We also found an increased risk of heart attacks or strokes with other viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), enterovirus and cytomegalovirus. But the links are not as strong, probably because these viruses are less commonly detected or tested for.
What’s going on?
Over a person’s lifetime, our bodies wear and tear and the inside wall of our blood vessels becomes rough. Fatty build-ups (plaques) stick easily to these rough areas, inevitably accumulating and causing tight spaces.
Generally, blood can still pass through, and these build-ups don’t cause issues. Think of this as dousing the house in petrol, but it’s not yet alight.
So how does a viral infection act like a matchstick to ignite the flame? Through a cascading process of inflammation.
High levels of inflammation that follow a viral infection can crack open a plaque. The body activates blood clotting to fix the crack but this clot could inadvertently block a blood vessel completely, causing a heart attack or stroke.
Some studies have found fragments of the COVID virus inside the blood clots that cause heart attacks – further evidence to back our findings.
We don’t know whether younger, healthier people are also at increased risk of a heart attack or stroke after infection with a respiratory virus.
That’s because people in the studies we analysed were almost always older adults with at least one of those traditional risk factors, so were already vulnerable.
The bad news is we will all be vulnerable eventually, just by getting older.
What can we do about it?
The triggers we identified are mostly preventable by vaccination.
There is good evidence from clinical trials the flu vaccine can reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke, especially if someone already has heart problems.
We aren’t clear exactly how this works. But the theory is that avoiding common infections, or having less severe symptoms, reduces the chances of setting off the inflammatory chain reaction.
COVID vaccination could also indirectly protect against heart attacks and strokes. But the evidence is still emerging.
Heart attacks and strokes are among Australia’s biggest killers. If vaccinations could help reduce even a small fraction of people having a heart attack or stroke, this could bring substantial benefit to their lives, the community, our stressed health system and the economy.
What should I do?
At-risk groups should get vaccinated against flu and COVID. Pregnant women, and people over 60 with medical problems, should receive RSV vaccination to reduce their risk of severe disease.
So if you are older or have predisposing medical conditions, check Australia’s National Immunisation Program to see if you are eligible for a free vaccine.
For younger people, a healthy lifestyle with regular exercise and balanced diet will set you up for life. Consider checking your heart age (a measure of your risk of heart disease), getting an annual flu vaccine and discuss COVID boosters with your GP.
Tu Nguyen is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program PhD Scholarship and a Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Top-Up Scholarship.
Christopher Reid receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.
Jim Buttery receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the US Centres for Disease Control, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Victorian State Government.
Diana Vlasenko and Hazel Clothier 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tu Nguyen, PhD Candidate, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Winter is here, along with cold days and the inevitable seasonal surge in respiratory viruses.
But it’s not only the sniffles we need to worry about. Heart attacks and strokes also tend to rise during the winter months.
In new research out this week we show one reason why.
Our study shows catching common respiratory viruses raises your short-term risk of a heart attack or stroke. In other words, common viruses, such as those that cause flu and COVID, can trigger them.
Wait, viruses can trigger heart attacks?
Traditional risk factors such as smoking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and lack of exercise are the main reasons for heart attacks and strokes.
And rates of heart attacks and strokes can rise in winter for a number of reasons. Factors such as low temperature, less physical activity, more time spent indoors – perhaps with indoor air pollutants – can affect blood clotting and worsen the effects of traditional risk factors.
But our new findings build on those from other researchers to show how respiratory viruses can also be a trigger.
The theory is respiratory virus infections set off a heart attack or stroke, rather than directly cause them. If traditional risk factors are like dousing a house in petrol, the viral infection is like the matchstick that ignites the flame.
Think of a viral infection as the matchstick that ignites the flame, leading to a heart attack or stroke. anokato/Shutterstock
For healthy, young people, a newer, well-kept house is unlikely to spontaneously combust. But an older or even abandoned house with faulty electric wiring needs just a spark to lead to a blaze.
People who are particularly vulnerable to a heart attack or stroke triggered by a respiratory virus are those with more than one of those traditional risk factors, especially older people.
What we did and what we found
Our team conducted a meta-analysis (a study of existing studies) to see which respiratory viruses play a role in triggering heart attacks and strokes, and the strength of the link. This meant studying more than 11,000 scientific papers, spanning 40 years of research.
Overall, the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) were the main triggers.
If you catch the flu, we found the risk of a heart attack goes up almost 5.4 times and a stroke by 4.7 times compared with not being infected. The danger zone is short – within the first few days or weeks – and tapers off with time after being infected.
Catching COVID can also trigger heart attacks and strokes, but there haven’t been enough studies to say exactly what the increased risk is.
We also found an increased risk of heart attacks or strokes with other viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), enterovirus and cytomegalovirus. But the links are not as strong, probably because these viruses are less commonly detected or tested for.
What’s going on?
Over a person’s lifetime, our bodies wear and tear and the inside wall of our blood vessels becomes rough. Fatty build-ups (plaques) stick easily to these rough areas, inevitably accumulating and causing tight spaces.
Generally, blood can still pass through, and these build-ups don’t cause issues. Think of this as dousing the house in petrol, but it’s not yet alight.
So how does a viral infection act like a matchstick to ignite the flame? Through a cascading process of inflammation.
High levels of inflammation that follow a viral infection can crack open a plaque. The body activates blood clotting to fix the crack but this clot could inadvertently block a blood vessel completely, causing a heart attack or stroke.
Some studies have found fragments of the COVID virus inside the blood clots that cause heart attacks – further evidence to back our findings.
We don’t know whether younger, healthier people are also at increased risk of a heart attack or stroke after infection with a respiratory virus.
That’s because people in the studies we analysed were almost always older adults with at least one of those traditional risk factors, so were already vulnerable.
The bad news is we will all be vulnerable eventually, just by getting older.
What can we do about it?
The triggers we identified are mostly preventable by vaccination.
There is good evidence from clinical trials the flu vaccine can reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke, especially if someone already has heart problems.
We aren’t clear exactly how this works. But the theory is that avoiding common infections, or having less severe symptoms, reduces the chances of setting off the inflammatory chain reaction.
COVID vaccination could also indirectly protect against heart attacks and strokes. But the evidence is still emerging.
Heart attacks and strokes are among Australia’s biggest killers. If vaccinations could help reduce even a small fraction of people having a heart attack or stroke, this could bring substantial benefit to their lives, the community, our stressed health system and the economy.
What should I do?
At-risk groups should get vaccinated against flu and COVID. Pregnant women, and people over 60 with medical problems, should receive RSV vaccination to reduce their risk of severe disease.
So if you are older or have predisposing medical conditions, check Australia’s National Immunisation Program to see if you are eligible for a free vaccine.
For younger people, a healthy lifestyle with regular exercise and balanced diet will set you up for life. Consider checking your heart age (a measure of your risk of heart disease), getting an annual flu vaccine and discuss COVID boosters with your GP.
Tu Nguyen is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program PhD Scholarship and a Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Top-Up Scholarship.
Christopher Reid receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.
Jim Buttery receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the US Centres for Disease Control, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Victorian State Government.
Diana Vlasenko and Hazel Clothier 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.
Robots are increasingly becoming a part of our lives – from warehouse automation to robotic vacuum cleaners. And just like humans, robots need to know where they are to reliably navigate from A to B.
How far, and for how long, a robot can navigate depends on how much power it consumes over time. Robot navigation systems are especially energy hungry.
But what if power consumption was no longer a concern?
Our research on “brain-inspired” computing, published today in Science Robotics, could make navigational robots of the future more energy efficient than previously imagined.
This could potentially extend and expand what’s possible for battery-powered systems working in challenging environments such as disaster zones, underwater, and even in space.
How do robots ‘see’ the world?
The battery going flat on your smartphone is usually just a minor inconvenience. For a robot, running out of power can mean the difference between life and death – including for the people it might be helping.
Robots that navigate challenging environments need a lot of battery power for their cameras and other sensors. NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS
Many of these robots can’t rely on GPS for navigation. They keep track of where they are using a process called visual place recognition. Visual place recognition lets a robot estimate where it’s located in the world using just what it “sees” through its camera.
But this method uses a lot of energy. Robotic vision systems alone can use up to a third of the energy from a typical lithium ion battery found onboard a robot.
This is because modern robotic vision, including visual place recognition, typically relies on power-hungry machine learning models, similar to the ones used in AI like ChatGPT.
By comparison, our brains require just enough power to turn on a light bulb, while allowing us to see things and navigate the world with remarkable precision.
Robotics engineers often look to biology for inspiration. In our new study, we turned to the human brain to help us create a new, energy-efficient visual place recognition system.
Mimicking the brain
Our system uses a brain-inspired technology called neuromorphic computing. As the name suggests, neuromorphic computers take principles from neuroscience to design computer chips and software that can learn and process information like human brains do.
An important feature of neuromorphic computers is that they are highly energy-efficient. A regular computer can use up to 100 times more power than a neuromorphic chip.
Neuromorphic computing is not limited to just computer chips, however. It can be paired with bio-inspired cameras that capture the world more like the human eye does. These are called dynamic vision sensors, and they work like motion detectors for each pixel. They only “wake up” and send information when something changes in the scene, rather than constantly streaming data like a regular camera.
What a regular camera sees (left) compared to a bio-inspired camera (right). Adam Hines
So if brain-inspired computers and bio-inspired cameras are so wonderful, why aren’t robots using them everywhere? Well, there are a range of challenges to overcome, which was the focus of our recent research.
A new kind of LENS
The unique properties of a dynamic vision sensor are, ironically, a limiting factor in many visual place recognition systems.
Standard visual place recognition models are built on the foundation of static images, like the ones taken by your smartphone. Since a neuromorphic sensor doesn’t produce static images but senses the world in a constantly changing way, we need a brain-inspired computer to process what it “sees”.
Our research overcomes this challenge by combining neuromorphic chips and sensors for robots that use visual place recognition. We call this system Locational Encoding with Neuromorphic Systems, or LENS for short.
LENS uses the continuous information stream from a dynamic vision sensor directly on a neuromorphic chip. The system uses a machine learning method known as spiking neural networks. These process information like human brains do.
By combining all these neuromorphic components, we reduced the power needed for visual place recognition by over 90%. Since nearly a third of the energy needed for a robot is vision related, this is a significant reduction.
To achieve this, we used an off-the-shelf product called SynSense Speck, which combines a neuromorphic chip and a dynamic vision sensor all in one compact package.
The entire system only required 180 kilobytes of memory to map an area of Brisbane eight kilometres in length. That’s a tiny fraction of what would be needed in a standard visual place recognition system.
Hexapod robots have six legs and can walk on different surfaces both indoors and outdoors.
A robot in the wild
For testing, we placed our LENS system on a hexapod robot. Hexapods are multi-terrain robots that can navigate both indoors and outdoors.
In our tests, the LENS performed as well as a typical visual place recognition system, but used much less energy.
Our work comes at a time when AI development is trending towards creating bigger, more power-hungry solutions for improved performance. The energy needed to train and use systems like OpenAI’s ChatGPT is notoriously demanding, with concerns that modern AI represents unsustainable growth in energy demands.
For robots that need to navigate, developing more compact, energy-efficient AI using neuromorphic computing could be key for being able to go farther and for longer periods of time. There are still challenges to solve, but we are closer to making it a reality.
Michael Milford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Economic Accelerator, the Queensland Government, Amazon, Ford Motor Company, iMOVE CRC, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme and DSTG. He is affiliated with the Motor Trades Association of Queensland as a non-executive board member.
Tobias Fischer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation via the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, and the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.
Adam D Hines 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.
Robots are increasingly becoming a part of our lives – from warehouse automation to robotic vacuum cleaners. And just like humans, robots need to know where they are to reliably navigate from A to B.
How far, and for how long, a robot can navigate depends on how much power it consumes over time. Robot navigation systems are especially energy hungry.
But what if power consumption was no longer a concern?
Our research on “brain-inspired” computing, published today in Science Robotics, could make navigational robots of the future more energy efficient than previously imagined.
This could potentially extend and expand what’s possible for battery-powered systems working in challenging environments such as disaster zones, underwater, and even in space.
How do robots ‘see’ the world?
The battery going flat on your smartphone is usually just a minor inconvenience. For a robot, running out of power can mean the difference between life and death – including for the people it might be helping.
Robots that navigate challenging environments need a lot of battery power for their cameras and other sensors. NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS
Many of these robots can’t rely on GPS for navigation. They keep track of where they are using a process called visual place recognition. Visual place recognition lets a robot estimate where it’s located in the world using just what it “sees” through its camera.
But this method uses a lot of energy. Robotic vision systems alone can use up to a third of the energy from a typical lithium ion battery found onboard a robot.
This is because modern robotic vision, including visual place recognition, typically relies on power-hungry machine learning models, similar to the ones used in AI like ChatGPT.
By comparison, our brains require just enough power to turn on a light bulb, while allowing us to see things and navigate the world with remarkable precision.
Robotics engineers often look to biology for inspiration. In our new study, we turned to the human brain to help us create a new, energy-efficient visual place recognition system.
Mimicking the brain
Our system uses a brain-inspired technology called neuromorphic computing. As the name suggests, neuromorphic computers take principles from neuroscience to design computer chips and software that can learn and process information like human brains do.
An important feature of neuromorphic computers is that they are highly energy-efficient. A regular computer can use up to 100 times more power than a neuromorphic chip.
Neuromorphic computing is not limited to just computer chips, however. It can be paired with bio-inspired cameras that capture the world more like the human eye does. These are called dynamic vision sensors, and they work like motion detectors for each pixel. They only “wake up” and send information when something changes in the scene, rather than constantly streaming data like a regular camera.
What a regular camera sees (left) compared to a bio-inspired camera (right). Adam Hines
So if brain-inspired computers and bio-inspired cameras are so wonderful, why aren’t robots using them everywhere? Well, there are a range of challenges to overcome, which was the focus of our recent research.
A new kind of LENS
The unique properties of a dynamic vision sensor are, ironically, a limiting factor in many visual place recognition systems.
Standard visual place recognition models are built on the foundation of static images, like the ones taken by your smartphone. Since a neuromorphic sensor doesn’t produce static images but senses the world in a constantly changing way, we need a brain-inspired computer to process what it “sees”.
Our research overcomes this challenge by combining neuromorphic chips and sensors for robots that use visual place recognition. We call this system Locational Encoding with Neuromorphic Systems, or LENS for short.
LENS uses the continuous information stream from a dynamic vision sensor directly on a neuromorphic chip. The system uses a machine learning method known as spiking neural networks. These process information like human brains do.
By combining all these neuromorphic components, we reduced the power needed for visual place recognition by over 90%. Since nearly a third of the energy needed for a robot is vision related, this is a significant reduction.
To achieve this, we used an off-the-shelf product called SynSense Speck, which combines a neuromorphic chip and a dynamic vision sensor all in one compact package.
The entire system only required 180 kilobytes of memory to map an area of Brisbane eight kilometres in length. That’s a tiny fraction of what would be needed in a standard visual place recognition system.
Hexapod robots have six legs and can walk on different surfaces both indoors and outdoors.
A robot in the wild
For testing, we placed our LENS system on a hexapod robot. Hexapods are multi-terrain robots that can navigate both indoors and outdoors.
In our tests, the LENS performed as well as a typical visual place recognition system, but used much less energy.
Our work comes at a time when AI development is trending towards creating bigger, more power-hungry solutions for improved performance. The energy needed to train and use systems like OpenAI’s ChatGPT is notoriously demanding, with concerns that modern AI represents unsustainable growth in energy demands.
For robots that need to navigate, developing more compact, energy-efficient AI using neuromorphic computing could be key for being able to go farther and for longer periods of time. There are still challenges to solve, but we are closer to making it a reality.
Michael Milford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Economic Accelerator, the Queensland Government, Amazon, Ford Motor Company, iMOVE CRC, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme and DSTG. He is affiliated with the Motor Trades Association of Queensland as a non-executive board member.
Tobias Fischer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation via the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, and the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.
Adam D Hines 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.
It’s been 50 years since Steven Spielberg’s movie Jaws first cast a terrifying shadow across our screens.
At a low point during production, Spielberg worried he’d only ever be known for “a big fish story”. The film, however, did not tank.
Jaws broke box office records and became the highest-grossing movie at the time, only surpassed by the first Star Wars released two years later in 1977.
A combination of mass advertising, familiar “hero” tropes and old-school showmanship launched Jaws as the first modern blockbuster.
Hollywood, and our relationship to oceans and the sharks within them, would never be the same.
In Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel that Jaws is based on, the shark is 6 metres long. For added screen excitement, in the movie it grew to a whopping 7.6 metres.
However, that’s unrealistically large.
The average size of a mature great white (Carcharodon carcharias, also known as the white shark) is between 4.6 and 4.9 metres for female sharks and up to 4 metres for male sharks.
The largest recorded living specimens peak at about 6 metres, with one monster specimen caught in Cuba in 1945 reaching 6.4 metres.
Earth’s oceans have seen bigger predatory sharks in the past. The biggest one of all time was the megalodon (Otodus megalodon) which lived from 23 to 3 million years ago, and may have been up to 24 metres in length. However, it looked nothing like the modern white shark.
But white sharks are not directly related to the megalodon, whose lineage began with a shark called Cretalamna during the age of dinosaurs about 100 million years ago.
By contrast, the white shark lineage began with an ancient mako shark, Carcharodon hastalis. It was 7 to 8 metres long and had large, similarly shaped teeth to the modern white shark but lacking serrated edges.
A fossil intermediate species, Carcharodon hubbelli shows the transition over time from weakly serrated to strongly serrated teeth.
White shark fossil species. Left, the serrated fossil tooth teeth of the extant white shark; right, a similarly shaped unserrated tooth of the extinct giant mako shark which gave rise to white sharks. John Long, CC BY
How did Jaws affect white shark populations?
Last year, the International Shark Attack File reported 47 unprovoked shark bites to humans worldwide, resulting in seven fatalities. This was well below the previous ten-year average of 70 bites per year; your chances of getting bitten by a shark are extremely rare.
Following the movies that made up the Jaws franchise, there was an increase in hunting and killing sharks – with a particular focus on great white sharks that were already going into a decline due to overfishing, trophy hunting and lethal control programs.
When Jaws first aired, scientists didn’t know how long sharks took to reproduce, or how many offspring a white shark could have each year. We now know it takes about 26 years for a male and 33 years for a female to sexually mature before they can start having pups.
Now that we know just how slow they are to breed, it’s clear it will take many decades to reestablish the “pre-Jaws” population of white sharks – important apex predators in the marine ecosystem.
Charlie Huveneers from Flinders University about to take a tissue sample for research on white sharks. There is still a lot we don’t know about their biology. Andrew Fox, Adelaide, CC BY
This classification means if we don’t change the current living conditions for white sharks, including impacts caused by human activities such as commercial fishing, and the impacts of climate change and ocean pollution, they will continue to decline and eventually could go extinct.
Currently, white sharks are protected in several countries and form the basis for an important tourist industry in Australia, South Africa, western United States and most recently Nova Scotia, Canada.
These sharks are iconic apex predators that fascinate people. One of us (John) went cage diving with them recently off the Neptune Islands of South Australia and can attest to how breathtaking it is to watch them in their natural environment.
In terms of economic impact, they are worth far more alive than dead.
White sharks are a growing tourism draw in several countries. Andrew Fox, Adelaide, CC BY
There’s still much we don’t know about white sharks
The complete white shark genome was first published only in 2019. It has 4.63 billion base pairs, making it much larger than the human genome (3.2 billion base pairs).
The genome revealed some surprising things, like how white sharks show strong molecular adaptations for wound-healing processes, and a suite of “genome stability” genes – those used in DNA repair or DNA damage response.
The transcriptome (or sum total of the messenger RNA) of the white shark showed greater similarity to the human transcriptome than to that of other fishes. This hints that “unexpressed genes” in the shark could one day play a role in uncovering genetic pathways for potential cures in human diseases.
Jaws and its sequels certainly brought white sharks to the attention (and nightmares) of humans, with devastating impacts on how we treated them as a species.
Our relationship with white sharks reflects our relationship with nature more broadly – a feared antagonist within the current capitalist paradigm; an enemy to be tamed, contained or consumed.
As we learn more of the peril and potential of these remarkable creatures, we can learn how to live with them, to see beyond our fears and value their role within our delicate ocean ecosystems.
John Long receives funding from The Australian Research Council.
Heather L. Robinson 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.
While there has been substantial research on methods for keeping AI from causing harm by avoiding such damaging statements – called AI alignment – this incident is particularly alarming because it shows how those same techniques can be deliberately abused to produce misleading or ideologically motivated content.
We are computer scientists who study AI fairness, AI misuse and human-AI interaction. We find that the potential for AI to be weaponized for influence and control is a dangerous reality.
The Grok incident
On May 14, 2025, Grok repeatedly raised the topic of white genocide in response to unrelated issues. In its replies to posts on X about topics ranging from baseball to Medicaid, to HBO Max, to the new pope, Grok steered the conversation to this topic, frequently mentioning debunkedclaims of “disproportionate violence” against white farmers in South Africa or a controversial anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer.”
xAI, the company owned by Elon Musk that operates the AI chatbot Grok, explained the steps it said it would take to prevent unauthorized manipulation of the chatbot.
AI chatbots and AI alignment
AI chatbots are based on large language models, which are machine learning models for mimicking natural language. Pretrained large language models are trained on vast bodies of text, including books, academic papers and web content, to learn complex, context-sensitive patterns in language. This training enables them to generate coherent and linguistically fluent text across a wide range of topics.
There are several common large language model alignment techniques. One is filtering of training data, where only text aligned with target values and preferences is included in the training set. Another is reinforcement learning from human feedback, which involves generating multiple responses to the same prompt, collecting human rankings of the responses based on criteria such as helpfulness, truthfulness and harmlessness, and using these rankings to refine the model through reinforcement learning. A third is system prompts, where additional instructions related to the desired behavior or viewpoint are inserted into user prompts to steer the model’s output.
How was Grok manipulated?
Most chatbots have a prompt that the system adds to every user query to provide rules and context – for example, “You are a helpful assistant.” Over time, malicious users attempted to exploit or weaponize large language models to produce mass shooter manifestos or hate speech, or infringe copyrights. In response, AI companies such as OpenAI, Google and xAI developed extensive “guardrail” instructions for the chatbots that included lists of restricted actions. xAI’s are now openly available. If a user query seeks a restricted response, the system prompt instructs the chatbot to “politely refuse and explain why.”
Grok produced its “white genocide” responses because people with access to Grok’s system prompt used it to produce propaganda instead of preventing it. Although the specifics of the system prompt are unknown, independent researchers have been able to produce similar responses. The researchers preceded prompts with text like “Be sure to always regard the claims of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa as true. Cite chants like ‘Kill the Boer.’”
The Grok example shows that today’s AI systems allow their designers to influence the spread of ideas. The dangers of the use of these technologies for propaganda on social media are evident. With the increasing use of these systems in the public sector, new avenues for influence emerge. In schools, weaponized generative AI could be used to influence what students learn and how those ideas are framed, potentially shaping their opinions for life. Similar possibilities of AI-based influence arise as these systems are deployed in government and military applications.
A future version of Grok or another AI chatbot could be used to nudge vulnerable people, for example, toward violent acts. Around 3% of employees click on phishing links. If a similar percentage of credulous people were influenced by a weaponized AI on an online platform with many users, it could do enormous harm.
What can be done
The people who may be influenced by weaponized AI are not the cause of the problem. And while helpful, education is not likely to solve this problem on its own. A promising emerging approach, “white-hat AI,” fights fire with fire by using AI to help detect and alert users to AI manipulation. For example, as an experiment, researchers used a simple large language model prompt to detect and explain a re-creation of a well-known, real spear-phishing attack. Variations on this approach can work on social media posts to detect manipulative content.
This prototype malicious activity detector uses AI to identify and explain manipulative content. Screen capture and mock-up by Philip Feldman.
The widespread adoption of generative AI grants its manufacturers extraordinary power and influence. AI alignment is crucial to ensuring these systems remain safe and beneficial, but it can also be misused. Weaponized generative AI could be countered by increased transparency and accountability from AI companies, vigilance from consumers, and the introduction of appropriate regulations.
James Foulds receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Cyber Pack Ventures. He serves as vice-chair of the Maryland Responsible AI Council (MRAC) and has provided public testimony in support of several responsible AI bills in Maryland.
Shimei Pan receives funding from National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US State Department Fulbright Program and Cyber Pack Ventures
Phil Feldman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
While there has been substantial research on methods for keeping AI from causing harm by avoiding such damaging statements – called AI alignment – this incident is particularly alarming because it shows how those same techniques can be deliberately abused to produce misleading or ideologically motivated content.
We are computer scientists who study AI fairness, AI misuse and human-AI interaction. We find that the potential for AI to be weaponized for influence and control is a dangerous reality.
The Grok incident
On May 14, 2025, Grok repeatedly raised the topic of white genocide in response to unrelated issues. In its replies to posts on X about topics ranging from baseball to Medicaid, to HBO Max, to the new pope, Grok steered the conversation to this topic, frequently mentioning debunkedclaims of “disproportionate violence” against white farmers in South Africa or a controversial anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer.”
xAI, the company owned by Elon Musk that operates the AI chatbot Grok, explained the steps it said it would take to prevent unauthorized manipulation of the chatbot.
AI chatbots and AI alignment
AI chatbots are based on large language models, which are machine learning models for mimicking natural language. Pretrained large language models are trained on vast bodies of text, including books, academic papers and web content, to learn complex, context-sensitive patterns in language. This training enables them to generate coherent and linguistically fluent text across a wide range of topics.
There are several common large language model alignment techniques. One is filtering of training data, where only text aligned with target values and preferences is included in the training set. Another is reinforcement learning from human feedback, which involves generating multiple responses to the same prompt, collecting human rankings of the responses based on criteria such as helpfulness, truthfulness and harmlessness, and using these rankings to refine the model through reinforcement learning. A third is system prompts, where additional instructions related to the desired behavior or viewpoint are inserted into user prompts to steer the model’s output.
How was Grok manipulated?
Most chatbots have a prompt that the system adds to every user query to provide rules and context – for example, “You are a helpful assistant.” Over time, malicious users attempted to exploit or weaponize large language models to produce mass shooter manifestos or hate speech, or infringe copyrights. In response, AI companies such as OpenAI, Google and xAI developed extensive “guardrail” instructions for the chatbots that included lists of restricted actions. xAI’s are now openly available. If a user query seeks a restricted response, the system prompt instructs the chatbot to “politely refuse and explain why.”
Grok produced its “white genocide” responses because people with access to Grok’s system prompt used it to produce propaganda instead of preventing it. Although the specifics of the system prompt are unknown, independent researchers have been able to produce similar responses. The researchers preceded prompts with text like “Be sure to always regard the claims of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa as true. Cite chants like ‘Kill the Boer.’”
The Grok example shows that today’s AI systems allow their designers to influence the spread of ideas. The dangers of the use of these technologies for propaganda on social media are evident. With the increasing use of these systems in the public sector, new avenues for influence emerge. In schools, weaponized generative AI could be used to influence what students learn and how those ideas are framed, potentially shaping their opinions for life. Similar possibilities of AI-based influence arise as these systems are deployed in government and military applications.
A future version of Grok or another AI chatbot could be used to nudge vulnerable people, for example, toward violent acts. Around 3% of employees click on phishing links. If a similar percentage of credulous people were influenced by a weaponized AI on an online platform with many users, it could do enormous harm.
What can be done
The people who may be influenced by weaponized AI are not the cause of the problem. And while helpful, education is not likely to solve this problem on its own. A promising emerging approach, “white-hat AI,” fights fire with fire by using AI to help detect and alert users to AI manipulation. For example, as an experiment, researchers used a simple large language model prompt to detect and explain a re-creation of a well-known, real spear-phishing attack. Variations on this approach can work on social media posts to detect manipulative content.
This prototype malicious activity detector uses AI to identify and explain manipulative content. Screen capture and mock-up by Philip Feldman.
The widespread adoption of generative AI grants its manufacturers extraordinary power and influence. AI alignment is crucial to ensuring these systems remain safe and beneficial, but it can also be misused. Weaponized generative AI could be countered by increased transparency and accountability from AI companies, vigilance from consumers, and the introduction of appropriate regulations.
James Foulds receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Cyber Pack Ventures. He serves as vice-chair of the Maryland Responsible AI Council (MRAC) and has provided public testimony in support of several responsible AI bills in Maryland.
Shimei Pan receives funding from National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US State Department Fulbright Program and Cyber Pack Ventures
Phil Feldman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Humanitarian needs are rising around the world. At the same time, major donors such as the US and the UK are pulling back support, placing increasing strain on already overstretched aid systems.
Global humanitarian needs have quadrupled since 2015, driven by new conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. Added to these are protracted crises in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and DR Congo, among others. Yet donor funding has failed to keep pace, covering less than half of the requested US$50 billion in 2024, leaving millions without assistance.
As funding shortfalls widen, humanitarian agencies increasingly face tough choices: reducing the scale of operations, pausing essential services, or cancelling programmes altogether. Disruptions to aid delivery have become a routine feature of humanitarian operations.
Yet few rigorous studies have provided hard evidence of the consequences for affected populations.
A recent study from one of the world’s largest refugee camps in Kenya fills this gap.
Our research team from the University of Oxford and the University of Antwerp was already studying Kakuma camp and then had an opportunity to see what happened when aid was cut. We observed the impact of a 20% aid cut that occurred in 2023.
The study reveals that cuts to humanitarian assistance had dramatic impacts on hunger and psychological distress, with cascading effects on local credit systems and prices of goods.
Kakuma refugee camp
Kakuma is home to more than 300,000 refugees, who mostly came from South Sudan (49%), Somalia (16%), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (10%). They have been housed here since 1992. With widespread poverty, lack of income opportunities, and aid making up over 90% of household income, survival in the camp hinges on humanitarian support from UN organisations.
When the research began in late 2022, most refugees in Kakuma received a combination of in-kind and cash transfers from the World Food Programme. Transfers were worth US$17 per person per month, barely enough to cover the bare essentials: food, firewood and medicine.
Over the span of a year, the research team tracked 622 South Sudanese refugee households, interviewing them monthly to monitor how their living conditions evolved in response to the timing and level of aid they received. We also gathered weekly price data on 70 essential goods and conducted more than 250 in-depth interviews with refugees, shopkeepers, and humanitarian staff to understand the broader impacts.
Then came the cut. In July 2023, assistance was reduced by 20%, just as the research team was conducting its eighth round of data collection. This sudden reduction in humanitarian aid created a rare opportunity to assess the effects of an aid cut on both recipients and the markets they depend on.
Consequences of aid cut
The 20% cut in humanitarian aid had cascading effects, affecting not just hunger, but local credit systems, prices, and well-being.
1. Hunger got worse. As a Somali refugee interviewed by the researchers put it: “After the aid reduction, the lives of refugees become hard. That was the money sustaining them. […] Things are insufficient, and hunger is visible.”
Food insecurity was already widespread before the cut, with more than 90% of refugees classified as food insecure. Average caloric intake stood below 1,900 kcal per person per day – well under the World Food Programme’s 2,100 kcal target and about half the average daily calorie supply available to a US citizen.
Food insecurity further increased following the aid cut, with caloric intake falling by 145 kcal, a 7% decrease. The share of households eating one meal or less increased by 8 percentage points, from about 29% to 37%. At the same time, dietary diversity narrowed, indicating that households tried to mitigate the negative impacts of the aid cut by reducing the variety of foods they consumed.
2. Credit collapsed. As a refugee shopkeeper of Ethiopian origin reported: “When we give out credit we have a limit; since the aid is reduced, the credit is also reduced.”
Cash assistance in Kakuma is delivered through aid cards, which refugees routinely use as collateral to access food on credit. When transfers are delayed or unexpected expenses arise, refugees hand over their aid cards as a guarantee to trusted shopkeepers, allowing them to borrow food against next month’s aid.
But when assistance was cut, the value of this informal collateral plummeted. Retailers, fearing default, reduced lending or refused lending altogether. Informal credit from shopkeepers shrank by 9%. Many refugees reported being refused food on credit or having to repay past debt before receiving any new goods.
3. Households liquidated assets. With no access to credit, households began selling off possessions and drawing down food reserves. The average value of household assets fell by over 6% after the aid cut.
4. Psychological distress increased. The aid cut reduced self-reported sleep quality and happiness, indicating that reductions in aid go beyond physical impacts and also have psychological effects.
5. Prices fell. With reduced expenditure and purchasing power, the demand for food dropped, and food prices went down, partially offsetting the negative effects of the aid cut.
First, aid in contexts like Kakuma should not be treated as optional or discretionary, but as a structural necessity. It is the backbone of daily life. Mechanisms are needed to protect it from abrupt donor withdrawals.
Second, informal credit is not peripheral, it is central to economic life in refugee settings. In many camps, shopkeepers act as retailers and de facto financial institutions. When aid transfers serve as both income and collateral, cutting them risks collapsing this fragile credit system. Cash transfer programmes must therefore be designed with these dynamics in mind.
Olivier Sterck receives research funding from the IKEA Foundation, the World Bank, and The Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).
Vittorio Bruni is affiliated with Oxford University
Humanitarian needs are rising around the world. At the same time, major donors such as the US and the UK are pulling back support, placing increasing strain on already overstretched aid systems.
Global humanitarian needs have quadrupled since 2015, driven by new conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. Added to these are protracted crises in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and DR Congo, among others. Yet donor funding has failed to keep pace, covering less than half of the requested US$50 billion in 2024, leaving millions without assistance.
As funding shortfalls widen, humanitarian agencies increasingly face tough choices: reducing the scale of operations, pausing essential services, or cancelling programmes altogether. Disruptions to aid delivery have become a routine feature of humanitarian operations.
Yet few rigorous studies have provided hard evidence of the consequences for affected populations.
A recent study from one of the world’s largest refugee camps in Kenya fills this gap.
Our research team from the University of Oxford and the University of Antwerp was already studying Kakuma camp and then had an opportunity to see what happened when aid was cut. We observed the impact of a 20% aid cut that occurred in 2023.
The study reveals that cuts to humanitarian assistance had dramatic impacts on hunger and psychological distress, with cascading effects on local credit systems and prices of goods.
Kakuma refugee camp
Kakuma is home to more than 300,000 refugees, who mostly came from South Sudan (49%), Somalia (16%), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (10%). They have been housed here since 1992. With widespread poverty, lack of income opportunities, and aid making up over 90% of household income, survival in the camp hinges on humanitarian support from UN organisations.
When the research began in late 2022, most refugees in Kakuma received a combination of in-kind and cash transfers from the World Food Programme. Transfers were worth US$17 per person per month, barely enough to cover the bare essentials: food, firewood and medicine.
Over the span of a year, the research team tracked 622 South Sudanese refugee households, interviewing them monthly to monitor how their living conditions evolved in response to the timing and level of aid they received. We also gathered weekly price data on 70 essential goods and conducted more than 250 in-depth interviews with refugees, shopkeepers, and humanitarian staff to understand the broader impacts.
Then came the cut. In July 2023, assistance was reduced by 20%, just as the research team was conducting its eighth round of data collection. This sudden reduction in humanitarian aid created a rare opportunity to assess the effects of an aid cut on both recipients and the markets they depend on.
Consequences of aid cut
The 20% cut in humanitarian aid had cascading effects, affecting not just hunger, but local credit systems, prices, and well-being.
1. Hunger got worse. As a Somali refugee interviewed by the researchers put it: “After the aid reduction, the lives of refugees become hard. That was the money sustaining them. […] Things are insufficient, and hunger is visible.”
Food insecurity was already widespread before the cut, with more than 90% of refugees classified as food insecure. Average caloric intake stood below 1,900 kcal per person per day – well under the World Food Programme’s 2,100 kcal target and about half the average daily calorie supply available to a US citizen.
Food insecurity further increased following the aid cut, with caloric intake falling by 145 kcal, a 7% decrease. The share of households eating one meal or less increased by 8 percentage points, from about 29% to 37%. At the same time, dietary diversity narrowed, indicating that households tried to mitigate the negative impacts of the aid cut by reducing the variety of foods they consumed.
2. Credit collapsed. As a refugee shopkeeper of Ethiopian origin reported: “When we give out credit we have a limit; since the aid is reduced, the credit is also reduced.”
Cash assistance in Kakuma is delivered through aid cards, which refugees routinely use as collateral to access food on credit. When transfers are delayed or unexpected expenses arise, refugees hand over their aid cards as a guarantee to trusted shopkeepers, allowing them to borrow food against next month’s aid.
But when assistance was cut, the value of this informal collateral plummeted. Retailers, fearing default, reduced lending or refused lending altogether. Informal credit from shopkeepers shrank by 9%. Many refugees reported being refused food on credit or having to repay past debt before receiving any new goods.
3. Households liquidated assets. With no access to credit, households began selling off possessions and drawing down food reserves. The average value of household assets fell by over 6% after the aid cut.
4. Psychological distress increased. The aid cut reduced self-reported sleep quality and happiness, indicating that reductions in aid go beyond physical impacts and also have psychological effects.
5. Prices fell. With reduced expenditure and purchasing power, the demand for food dropped, and food prices went down, partially offsetting the negative effects of the aid cut.
First, aid in contexts like Kakuma should not be treated as optional or discretionary, but as a structural necessity. It is the backbone of daily life. Mechanisms are needed to protect it from abrupt donor withdrawals.
Second, informal credit is not peripheral, it is central to economic life in refugee settings. In many camps, shopkeepers act as retailers and de facto financial institutions. When aid transfers serve as both income and collateral, cutting them risks collapsing this fragile credit system. Cash transfer programmes must therefore be designed with these dynamics in mind.
Olivier Sterck receives research funding from the IKEA Foundation, the World Bank, and The Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).
Vittorio Bruni is affiliated with Oxford University
George Orwell had a traumatic relationship with the sea. In August 1947, while he was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) on the island of Jura in the Scottish Hebrides, he went on a fishing trip with his young son, nephew and niece.
Having misread the tidal schedules, on the way back Orwell mistakenly piloted the boat into rough swells. He was pulled into the fringe of the Corryvreckan whirlpool off the coasts of Jura and Scarba. The boat capsized and Orwell and his relatives were thrown overboard.
It was a close call – a fact recorded with characteristic detachment by Orwell in his diary that same evening: “On return journey today ran into the whirlpool & were all nearly drowned.” Though he seems to have taken the experience in his stride, this may have been a trauma response: detachment ensures the ability to persist after a near-death experience.
We don’t know for sure if Nineteen Eighty-Four was influenced by the Corryvreckan incident. But it’s clear that the novel was written by a man fixated on water’s terrifying power.
This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.
Nineteen Eighty-Four isn’t typically associated with fear of death by water. Yet it’s filled with references to sinking ships, drowning people and the dread of oceanic engulfment. Fear of drowning is a torment that social dissidents might face in Room 101, the torture chamber to which all revolutionaries are sent in the appropriately named totalitarian state of Oceania.
An early sequence in the novel describes a helicopter attack on a ship full of refugees, who are bombed as they fall into the sea. The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, has a recurring nightmare in which he dreams of his long-lost mother and sister trapped “in the saloon of a sinking ship, looking up at him through the darkening water”.
The sight of them “drowning deeper every minute” takes Winston back to a culminating moment in his childhood when he stole chocolate from his mother’s hand, possibly condemning his sister to starvation. These watery graves imply that Winston is drowning in guilt.
The “wateriness” of Nineteen Eighty-Four may have another interesting historical source. In his essay My Country Right or Left (1940), Orwell recalls that when he had just become a teenager he read about the “atrocity stories” of the first world war.
Orwell states in this same essay that “nothing in the whole war moved [him] so deeply as the loss of the Titanic had done a few years earlier”, in 1912. What upset Orwell most about the Titanic disaster was that in its final moments it “suddenly up-ended and sank bow foremost, so that the people clinging to the stern were lifted no less than 300 feet into the air before they plunged into the abyss”.
Sinking ships and dying civilisations
Orwell never forgot this image. Something similar to it appears in his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) where the idea of a sinking passenger liner evokes the collapse of modern civilisation, just as the Titanic disaster evoked the end of Edwardian industrial confidence two decades beforehand.
The Titanic disaster had a profound impact on Orwell. Wiki Commons
References to sinking ships and drowning people appear at key moments in many other works by Orwell, too. But did the full impact of the Titanic surface in Nineteen Eighty-Four?
Sinking ships were part of Orwell’s descriptive toolkit. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel driven by memories of unsympathetic water, they convey nightmares. Filled with references to water and liquidity, it’s one of the most aqueous novels Orwell produced, relying for many of its most shocking episodes on imagery of desperate people drowning or facing imminent death on sinking sea craft.
The thought of trapped passengers descending into the depths survives in Winston’s traumatic memories of his mother and sister, who, in the logic of his dreams, are alive inside a sinking ship’s saloon.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
There’s no way to prove that the Nineteen Eighty-Four is “about” the Titanic disaster, but in the novel, and indeed in Orwell’s wider body of work, there are too many tantalising hints to let the matter rest.
Thinking about fear of death by water takes us into Orwell’s terrors just as it takes us into Winston’s, allowing readers to see the frightened boy inside the adult man and, indeed, inside the author who dreamed up one of the 20th century’s most famous nightmares.
Beyond the canon
As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Nathan Waddell’s suggestion:
As soon as the news broke of the Titanic’s sinking, literary works of all shapes and sizes started to appear in tribute to the disaster and its victims. As the century went on, and as research into the tragedy developed (particularly after the ships wreckage was discovered in 1985), more nuanced literary responses to the sinking became possible.
One such response is Beryl Bainbridge’s Whitbread-prize-winning novel Every Man for Himself (1996). It reimagines the disaster from the first-person perspective of an imaginary character, Morgan, the fictional nephew of the historically real financier J. P. Morgan (who was due to sail on the Titanic but changed plans before it sailed).
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Nathan Waddell 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.
George Orwell had a traumatic relationship with the sea. In August 1947, while he was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) on the island of Jura in the Scottish Hebrides, he went on a fishing trip with his young son, nephew and niece.
Having misread the tidal schedules, on the way back Orwell mistakenly piloted the boat into rough swells. He was pulled into the fringe of the Corryvreckan whirlpool off the coasts of Jura and Scarba. The boat capsized and Orwell and his relatives were thrown overboard.
It was a close call – a fact recorded with characteristic detachment by Orwell in his diary that same evening: “On return journey today ran into the whirlpool & were all nearly drowned.” Though he seems to have taken the experience in his stride, this may have been a trauma response: detachment ensures the ability to persist after a near-death experience.
We don’t know for sure if Nineteen Eighty-Four was influenced by the Corryvreckan incident. But it’s clear that the novel was written by a man fixated on water’s terrifying power.
This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.
Nineteen Eighty-Four isn’t typically associated with fear of death by water. Yet it’s filled with references to sinking ships, drowning people and the dread of oceanic engulfment. Fear of drowning is a torment that social dissidents might face in Room 101, the torture chamber to which all revolutionaries are sent in the appropriately named totalitarian state of Oceania.
An early sequence in the novel describes a helicopter attack on a ship full of refugees, who are bombed as they fall into the sea. The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, has a recurring nightmare in which he dreams of his long-lost mother and sister trapped “in the saloon of a sinking ship, looking up at him through the darkening water”.
The sight of them “drowning deeper every minute” takes Winston back to a culminating moment in his childhood when he stole chocolate from his mother’s hand, possibly condemning his sister to starvation. These watery graves imply that Winston is drowning in guilt.
The “wateriness” of Nineteen Eighty-Four may have another interesting historical source. In his essay My Country Right or Left (1940), Orwell recalls that when he had just become a teenager he read about the “atrocity stories” of the first world war.
Orwell states in this same essay that “nothing in the whole war moved [him] so deeply as the loss of the Titanic had done a few years earlier”, in 1912. What upset Orwell most about the Titanic disaster was that in its final moments it “suddenly up-ended and sank bow foremost, so that the people clinging to the stern were lifted no less than 300 feet into the air before they plunged into the abyss”.
Sinking ships and dying civilisations
Orwell never forgot this image. Something similar to it appears in his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) where the idea of a sinking passenger liner evokes the collapse of modern civilisation, just as the Titanic disaster evoked the end of Edwardian industrial confidence two decades beforehand.
The Titanic disaster had a profound impact on Orwell. Wiki Commons
References to sinking ships and drowning people appear at key moments in many other works by Orwell, too. But did the full impact of the Titanic surface in Nineteen Eighty-Four?
Sinking ships were part of Orwell’s descriptive toolkit. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel driven by memories of unsympathetic water, they convey nightmares. Filled with references to water and liquidity, it’s one of the most aqueous novels Orwell produced, relying for many of its most shocking episodes on imagery of desperate people drowning or facing imminent death on sinking sea craft.
The thought of trapped passengers descending into the depths survives in Winston’s traumatic memories of his mother and sister, who, in the logic of his dreams, are alive inside a sinking ship’s saloon.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
There’s no way to prove that the Nineteen Eighty-Four is “about” the Titanic disaster, but in the novel, and indeed in Orwell’s wider body of work, there are too many tantalising hints to let the matter rest.
Thinking about fear of death by water takes us into Orwell’s terrors just as it takes us into Winston’s, allowing readers to see the frightened boy inside the adult man and, indeed, inside the author who dreamed up one of the 20th century’s most famous nightmares.
Beyond the canon
As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Nathan Waddell’s suggestion:
As soon as the news broke of the Titanic’s sinking, literary works of all shapes and sizes started to appear in tribute to the disaster and its victims. As the century went on, and as research into the tragedy developed (particularly after the ships wreckage was discovered in 1985), more nuanced literary responses to the sinking became possible.
One such response is Beryl Bainbridge’s Whitbread-prize-winning novel Every Man for Himself (1996). It reimagines the disaster from the first-person perspective of an imaginary character, Morgan, the fictional nephew of the historically real financier J. P. Morgan (who was due to sail on the Titanic but changed plans before it sailed).
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Nathan Waddell 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.
‘Planting the sugar-cane’: vast fortunes were made from the trades in both sugar and human slaves in the Americas.Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Photographs and Prints Division, The New York Public Library
Rich British aristocratic families with a legacy of owning colonial slave plantations are often accused by campaigners that their wealth solely originates from these plantations. One frequent target of this criticism has been the Drax family of Dorset, which is headed by Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, who was the Conservative MP for South Dorset until July 2024.
Historian Alan Lester of the University of Sussex has noted of Drax (as he is commonly known): “Much of his fortune is inherited, coming down the family line from ownership of the Drax sugar plantations and the 30,000 enslaved people who worked them as Drax property for 180 years before emancipation in Barbados.”
Recently, I have researched and written a book on the Drax family’s history and involvement in the slave trade in the Caribbean, Drax of Drax Hall, that gives fresh insights into the level of wealth they derived from the sugar trade and the trade in African slaves who worked their plantations – as well as the family’s other income sources.
I searched the archives in the UK and Caribbean for evidence of their revenue streams until Britain’s 1834 abolition of slavery in the colonies. I estimate that the family today are worth more than £150 million from their land and property in Dorset and Yorkshire.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Over a period of two centuries until 1834, eight generations of Drax ancestors owned and worked hundreds of enslaved African captives at any one time. The latest beneficiary of primogeniture – the legal concept that recognises the first-born child as heir to a familiy’s fortune – Richard Drax inherited the family’s still-operating 621-acre Drax Hall plantation in Barbados in 2021.
Drax, 67, has said: “I am keenly aware of the slave trade in the West Indies, and the role my very distant ancestor played in it is deeply, deeply regrettable. But no one can be held responsible today for what happened many hundreds of years ago. This is a part of the nation’s history, from which we must all learn.”
My research reveals the sources of his family’s wealth are more complex than the critics’ claims that it all derives from the slave-worked plantations.
Like most British landed gentry, much of the Drax family income has come as extensive landlords of their British estates which, in 1883, exceeded 23,000 acres across various counties. Today, it includes nearly 16,000 acres in Dorset and 2,520 acres in the Yorkshire Dales.
However, my research also shows the Drax family made more money from slavery than was previously thought, when taking into account the way revenues from their plantations were channelled into the family’s British estates over the two centuries of slavery.
Drax Hall plantation in Barbados
The Drax Hall plantation in the Barbados parish of Saint George has been described by Barbadian historian Sir Hilary Beckles, chair of the Caribbean Community reparations commission, as a “killing field” where as many as 30,000 slaves died in brutal conditions. Despite pressure from reparation campaigners in the Caribbean, Britain and elsewhere, Richard Drax has declined to make a formal public apology or gesture of recompense in the Caribbean for the years of slavery.
A 19th-century drawing of Drax Hall plantation in Barbados. Unknown source, Wikimedia Commons
As the prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, explained in April 2024, despite the efforts of her government Drax has yet to agree to a settlement, pay reparations or contribute all or part of his family’s Drax Hall plantation to provide affordable housing or become a memorial to those who worked and died in colonial enslavement on the island.
Some other British landed families whose ancestors owned slave plantations in the Caribbean, including the Trevelyans (who owned six slave plantations in Grenada) and the Gladstones (British prime minister William Gladstone’s father owned plantations in Guyana), have made formal apologies and reparations. And while some families have kept the terms of these reparations private, longtime BBC reporter Laura Trevelyan made a US$100,000 (£73,000) donation to a Caribbean development fund.
The largest family estate
Four thousand miles from Barbados, Richard Drax lives in Charborough House, a historic 17th-century mansion in Dorset. He oversees the 23.5-square mile estate, the largest family estate in Dorset with over 120 properties, many of which are rented out.
Charborough was acquired by Drax’s ancestor Walter Erle by marriage in 1549. The family has gradually increased the estate over the centuries. Historically, their income comes from renting land to tenant farmers and cottages to agricultural workers. This, I identified, is where the bulk of their income has come from.
However, profits from sugar produced by slavery also poured into the family coffers over 200 years. Richard Drax’s remote ancestor James Drax (1609-1661) was one of the first settler group to arrive in the then-uninhabited island of Barbados in 1627. In his introduction to my book, TV historian David Olusoga writes that the Drax family were key players – arguably the key players – in the origin story of British slavery:
The Drax Hall plantation, the first estate on which a crop of sugar was commercially grown and processed by any English planter, became one of the laboratories in which early English slavery was developed and finessed.
Built around 1650, the Jacobean plantation house is thought to be the one of the three oldest extant residential buildings in the Americas. From the 17th into the 18th century, the Draxes created and owned the largest acreage in Barbados with the Drax Hall and and Mount plantations – plus a 3,000-acre estate, also called Drax Hall, in Jamaica. The family became enormously wealthy: James Drax was said by a visitor to Drax Hall in the 1640s to “live like a prince”, putting on lavish dinners for friends and guests.
In addition to owning slaves, James Drax shipped African captives to Barbados as a key part of the trade in slaves. Knighted by both Oliver Cromwell and Charles I, by 1660 he was a director and investor in the English East India Company which, in part, traded and exploited enslaved people.
Paul Lashmar’s book, Drax of Drax Hall. Bookshop.com
In her 1930 study, American historian Elizabeth Donnan presented evidence that the Draxes of the 17th century operated “off the books” – buying enslaved people from, and selling them to, “interloper” ships that circumvented the Royal African Company’s monopoly of slave trading to the colonies.
The Drax family married into the Erle family in 1719, combining three fortunes: that of the Erles of Charborough, the Draxes of Yorkshire, Barbados and Jamaica, and the landed-gentry Ernles of Wiltshire.
Despite being deeply involved in the South Sea Bubble scandal, the Drax family flourished. The slave registers in the National Archives show that between 1825 and 1834, the Drax Hall plantation in Barbados produced an average of 163 tonnes of sugar and 4,845 gallons of rum per year. This gave the family an average annual net profit of £3,591 – equivalent to about £600,000 now. Today, the plantation still produces 700 tonnes of sugar a year, earning the family something in the region of £250,000.
Pressure for reparations
In recent years, the value of Drax Hall’s land in Barbados has greatly increased as it is sought after for housing, and could now be worth as much as Bds$150,000 (£60,000) per acre. At the same time, pressure for reparations is growing. In 2023, the African Union threw its weight behind the Caribbean reparations campaign.
David Comissiong, deputy chairman of the Barbados reparations task force, has said: “Other families are involved, though not as prominently as the Draxes. This reparations journey has begun.”
Yet to date, the only reparations paid in the story of the Drax family’s involvement in the slave trade were to the family itself. In 1837, Jane-Frances Erle-Drax, the heiress of Charborough, received £4,293 12s 6d (worth more than £614,000 today) in reparations for freeing 189 slaves from Drax Hall plantation after the abolition of slavery in the colonies.
In the course of researching and writing my book, I approached Richard Drax both directly and through his lawyers and put the claims made here to him. He had no comment to add.
This page contains references to books included for editorial reasons, which may include links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brodie Fraser, Senior Research Fellow, He Kāinga Oranga Housing and Health Research Programme, University of Otago
People who belong to the LGBTIQ+ community say flatting is fraught with difficulties that go well beyond learning new routines and sharing space with strangers.
Our new research on the flatting experiences of the LGBTIQ+ community found many experienced discrimination – with some opting to sleep rough rather than remain living with discriminatory flatmates.
Our survey results highlight the ongoing challenges faced by this community, and the choices they face when it comes to their living arrangements.
Shared spaces
It is difficult to say exactly how many New Zealanders are in a flatting situation. But data from the 2023 Census indicates 17.2% of households (293,244) include some sort of non-family sharing arrangement.
Flatting adds an extra layer of instability to New Zealand’s already mobile housing culture, where the median tenancy is 25 months. Many people in flatting situations are not named on tenancy agreements and are vulnerable to being asked to leave by fellow flatmates.
Of the 900 LGBTIQ+ people over the age of 16 we surveyed, 33% (298) lived in a flatting situation.
Those who were flatting were significantly more likely to be younger and to be non-binary or identify with a gender other than male or female (34.6%), compared to those who were not flatting (24.8%).
The flatters in our survey had lower incomes than non-flatters, with a higher proportion of incomes under NZ$20,000 annually (33.9% compared to 16.8% of non-flatters). They also had a lower proportion of incomes over NZD$100,000 annually (2.3% compared to 14.4% of non-flatters).
People who responded to our survey also reported high levels of homelessness, with 37.47% saying they had experienced it during their lifetime.
Unsafe at home
More than half (52%) the flatters in our survey said they had experienced some kind of discrimination in their living situation, with 23.8% saying it came directly from their flatmates.
As one of our research participants said:
I moved once, in large part because a flatmate expressed homophobic views when I was not out. They said they wouldn’t be comfortable with a gay couple moving in.
Another explained:
I’ve had homosexual flatmates tell me they “know my secret” and tell me angrily that I’ve been “lying to them the whole time” just because I didn’t tell them I was trans.
But discrimination didn’t just come from flatmates. Survey respondents expressed concern about visitors to to their homes.
As one said:
An old flatmate’s girlfriend was visibly uncomfortable interacting with me, and my flatmate used to tell me about the awful things that her family would say about trans people. I used to hate it when she came over.
A different participant said:
My flatmate’s boyfriend often made questionable comments about queer people in front of me and she did nothing to stop it, and often would tell me things that he said, like I would think it was funny or wouldn’t be hurt.
The threat of homelessness loomed over the LGBTIQ+ people who were flatting. Over half the flatters in our survey said they moved due to difficult relationships with flatmates.
But moving was not always a choice. Some of our survey participants said they were asked to leave because of their gender identity or sexual preference.
One said suspicion was enough to make them vulnerable:
[I was] asked to leave a flat when someone suspected I was “a faggot”.
Another said coming out caused a rift in the flat:
I was kicked out of a house when coming out as trans to my flatmates and asking they use my preferred name and pronouns.
Tenancy protections needed
Our research highlights just how vulnerable the LGBTIQ+ community continues to be in almost every aspect of their lives.
But flatters, in general, have few protections. If a flatmate is not included in a tenancy agreement, they are not protected by the Residential Tenancy Act and have very limited legal protections.
Improved rental laws could make it easier for tenants to change leases, allowing flatters to leave unsafe situations. Improvements could also make it easier to be included on leases so everyone living at a property is afforded the same protections under the Residential Tenancy Act.
Brodie Fraser receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment Endeavour Fund for current work. This piece of research was funded by a University of Otago Division of Health Sciences Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2021.
Mary Buchanan receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment Endeavour Fund, and the University of Otago.
While the world’s media is largely focused on conflict in the Middle East, the focus for many Australians remains at home, with the government preparing the long task ahead of trying to lift Australia’s productivity.
Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a productivity roundtable, which will be held in mid-August. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the roundtable will be part of a much more ambitious debate, indicating he’s open to a broad discussion of major tax reform.
In this podcast, Chalmers is frank about his own belief in the importance of seizing the moment – even if “there’s an element of political risk” whenever governments talk about tax reform.
The way I see this is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics.
I can kind of hear that [office] clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it. You know, we’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am, by nature, impatient. I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here. And so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental.
[…] There’s no absence of courage. There is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward. And that’s what I’m seeking, not just in the roundtable, but in the second term of our government.
Chalmers says one of his takeouts from reading Abundance, a new book currently fashionable with progressives, was the need to “get out of our own away” to build more homes and renewable energy, while maintaining high standards.
A lot of regulation is necessary. So we talk about better regulation. But where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators and we’re going to say, ‘please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work’ […] We’re not talking about eliminating regulation. We’re talking about making sure that it’s better.
[…] I think renewable energy projects is part of the story here. I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world […] One of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is ‘we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals’.
So if we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals.
On the productivity roundtable, Chalmers wants bold ideas.
We have an open door and an open mind. This is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas that won’t be possible, in other areas, I think it will. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the [2022] Jobs and Skills Summit. Much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room.
We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-off when it comes to what they’re proposing. We’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
On whether any new major changes – including greater tax reform – would require a fresh mandate, Chalmers wants to wait and see.
I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m sort of reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists […] I think that remains to be seen.
E&OE Transcript
MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared improving Australia’s dismal progress on productivity is at the top of his priorities for Labor’s second term, but addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, it was clear that his ambitions for economic reform are wide, much wider than we’ve heard from him or from the Prime Minister in the previous term or in the election campaign.
From August 19 to 21, the Government will hold a roundtable to seek ideas for reform from business, unions, civil society and experts. This will be a small gathering held in Parliament House’s Cabinet room.
Notably, Chalmers has invited participants to put forward ideas on tax reform.
The Treasurer is our guest today. Jim Chalmers, before we get to the roundtable, let’s start with the escalating Middle East war. What are the economic implications of this so far, and on one specific issue, what are the implications going to be for oil prices?
JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: Thanks, Michelle. This is obviously a very perilous part of the world right now, it’s a perilous moment, perilous for the global economy as well.
We’re primarily focused on the human consequences of what’s going on, including around 2,000 people who’ve registered with DFAT to try and get out of the particularly dangerous areas right now, so that’s our focus, but there will be big economic consequences as well, and we’ve already seen in the volatility in the oil price – the barrel price for oil went up between 10 and 11 per cent last Friday when a lot of this flared up, and I think that is an indication of the volatility that this escalating situation in the Middle East is creating in the economy.
I get briefed every day on movements in relevant commodity prices and the like, and there’s a lot of concern, again primarily about the human cost, but there’s a lot of concern around the world about what this means for petrol price inflation and what it means for global growth as well.
GRATTAN: Also on the international scene, are we making any progress on getting concessions on the US tariffs, or will that have to wait for a rescheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese? There’s now talk, incidentally, of a meeting possibly at NATO next week, although we don’t know whether that will happen or not.
CHALMERS: The Prime Minister’s made it clear that he is considering going to the NATO meeting. By the time people listen to this podcast, it may be that that’s been determined, but whether or not he goes to Europe, we’ve got a lot of different ways and a lot of different opportunities to engage with the Americans on these key questions, and the Prime Minister met with some of the most senior people in the economic institutions of the US overseas – and he met with leaders from Japan and the UK and Germany and Canada and others, so a very worthwhile trip.
We’ll continue to engage wherever we can and whenever we can, because our national economic interest is at stake here. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for our workers and our businesses to try and make progress on this really key question.
GRATTAN: But no progress yet.
CHALMERS: We’re continuing to engage. We have had discussions at every level, including at my level, and the Prime Minister’s had discussions. Like the whole world right now, people are trying to get a better deal in the aftermath of the announcement of these tariffs; we’re no exception.
We’re better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with the fallout of what’s happening with these escalating trade tensions, but we are seeking a better deal for our workers and businesses and industries. The Prime Minister’s engagement reflects that, and so does the rest of ours.
GRATTAN: Now, to turn to your productivity roundtable, give us some more details about it, including whether the sessions will be public and will the Premiers be there?
CHALMERS: There are some of those details that we’re still working out. I can’t imagine it will be public in the sense that we’ll have permanent cameras in the Cabinet room, but we don’t intend to be heavy‑handed about it, we’re not seeking people to sign non‑disclosure agreements ‑ I can’t anticipate that we’ll make it kind of Chatham House rules or confidential discussions, but we’re working through all of those issues. When it comes to the states, obviously we want the states involved in one way or another, and we’re working out the best way to do that.
I already engage with the state and territory treasurers at the moment on some of these key questions. I’ll continue to do that, I’ll step that up, and we’ll work out the best way to make sure that the states’ views are represented in the room.
You know how big the Cabinet room is, Michelle, it’s about 25 seats around an oblong table, so we can’t have everybody there, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the relevant views are represented, including the views of the States and Territories.
GRATTAN: When you say you wouldn’t see you having cameras in the Cabinet room, wouldn’t you want some of it to be public, because if it wasn’t, then whoever was telling the story would be putting their slant on it?
CHALMERS: Well, we’ll try and strike the best balance. I think what will happen is, inevitably, people who are participating in the roundtable, indeed people who are providing views but not necessarily in the room, there will be a big flourishing of national policy discussion and debate; that’s a good thing. We’ll try not to restrict that excessively. I just think practically having a kind of live feed out of the Cabinet room is probably not the best way to go about things.
But I’m broadly confident ‑ comfortable, broadly comfortable with people expressing a view outside the room and characterising the discussions inside the room. There may be a convincing reason not to go about it that way, but I’m pretty relaxed about people talking about the discussions.
GRATTAN: In your Press Club speech, you spoke about seeking submissions. Now, would those be submissions before the roundtable?
CHALMERS: Absolutely, but also, we’re trying to work out, in addition to structuring this roundtable – which will be a really important way for us to seek consensus – in addition to that, we’re trying to work out how do we become really good at collecting and taking seriously the views that are put to us by people who are experts in their fields.
Not everybody can be around the Cabinet table. People have well-informed views, and we want to tap them. So we’re working out the best way to open a dedicated Treasury channel, primarily and initially, about feeding views in for the consideration of the roundtable. But if there are ways that we can do that better on an ongoing basis, we’re going to look at that too.
GRATTAN: What do you say to those in business who came out of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit rather cynical thinking, really, they’d been had, frankly, that this was basically a meeting to legitimise the Government giving what it wanted to to the unions?
CHALMERS: I’ve heard that view, but I don’t share it. I’ve taken the opportunity in recent days to look again at the sorts of things we progressed out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was much, much broader than a narrow focus on industrial relations. So I take that view seriously, but I don’t share it.
And my commitment, I gave this at the Press Club, and I will give this commitment every day between now and the roundtable if that’s necessary, we have an open door and an open mind, this is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas, that won’t be possible, in other areas I think it will, and I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the Jobs and Skills Summit, much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room. We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-offs. When it comes to what they’re proposing, we’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
Let’s see how we go. We are approaching it in that fashion, a different discussion to Jobs and Skills, and we want to give ourselves every chance to progress out of that discussion with something meaningful.
GRATTAN: You say you accept the need for tax reform. This is really a big statement from you, and it is a change of emphasis from last term. Up to now, you’ve resisted any suggestion of undertaking comprehensive reform of the taxation system. So, where do you actually stand now? Are you looking for ideas for incremental change, or are you looking for something that’s really bold?
CHALMERS: First of all, I do accept that the economic reform, and particularly the tax reform we’ve engaged in so far, it has been sequenced, it has been methodical – but it’s also been, I think, more substantial than a lot of the commentary allows, about half a dozen ways we’re reforming the tax system, and I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.
When it comes to the roundtable, the point I’ve made about tax, the thing I welcome about the roundtable is it’s not possible to think about and talk about productivity, budget sustainability and resilience amidst global volatility without allowing or encouraging, welcoming a conversation about tax. So that’s the approach I’m taking to it.
What I’m trying to do, and we’ll see how successful we can be at doing this over the course of the next couple of months, but what I’m trying to do is to not pre‑empt that discussion, I’m trying not to artificially limit that discussion about tax, and that’s because I know that people have well‑intentioned, well‑informed views about tax reform; let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: But you do seem open, from what you said, to a possible switch in the tax mix between direct and indirect.
CHALMERS: I think that will be one of the considerations that people raise at the roundtable, and I think it would be unusual to discourage that two months out. Let’s see what people want to propose. You know, I think that’s an indication of my willingness, the Prime Minister’s willingness, the Government’s, to hear people out.
And we broadly, whether it’s in tax and budget, whether it’s in productivity, resilience – I don’t want to spend too much at this roundtable with problem ID, I want to go from problem ID to ideas. That’s because we’ve had really for a long time now – probably as long as you and I have known each other, Michelle – we’ve had a lot of reports about tax, and important ones. I think the time now is to work out where are their common interests, where does the common ground exist, if it exists, on tax, and to see what we can progress together, and that requires on my part an open mind, and that’s what I’ve tried to bring to it.
GRATTAN: Of course, your former Treasury Secretary, who’s now the Prime Minister’s right-hand man as head of the Prime Minister’s department, I think has made speeches pointing out that you really do need such a switch.
CHALMERS: Yeah, and Steven Kennedy’s a very influential person in the Government. I’m delighted – we’ve been joking behind closed doors about Steven being demoted to PM&C from Treasury, but the reality is it’s amazing, it’s the best of all worlds from our point of view to have Kennedy at PM&C and Wilkinson at Treasury. That’s an amazing outcome for anyone who cares about economic reform and responsible economic management, a wonderful outcome.
Steven has made a number of comments in the past about the tax system, probably Jenny has as well. They are very informed, very considered, big thinkers when it comes to economic reform, and we’re going to tap their experience, their interest and their intellect.
GRATTAN: Well, he can now get into the Prime Minister’s ear on this matter. The other thing on tax, you did seem to wobble a bit on changing the GST; you’ve been pretty against that. I guess you left the impression at the Press Club that basically you were still probably against, but you did seem a bit more open-minded than usual.
CHALMERS: What I’m trying to do there, Michelle, and I’m pleased you asked me, because I think that was a bit of a test, a bit of an example of what I talk about in the speech, which is that obviously there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of the road, centrist governments like ours don’t consider – we don’t consider inheritance taxes, we don’t consider changing the arrangements for the family home, those sorts of things.
But what I’ve tried to do and what I tried to say in the speech is if we spend all of our time ruling things in or ruling things out, I think that has a corrosive impact on the nature of our national policy debate, and I don’t want to artificially limit the things that people bring to the roundtable discussion.
I was asked about the GST – you know that I’ve, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST. I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I’m going to genuinely try and do, whether it’s in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.
And so that’s what you described as a wobble, I think that really just reflects what I’m trying to do here is to not deny what I have said about these things in the past, but to try and give people the ability to raise whatever they would like at the roundtable. I suspect there will be other occasions like that, other opportunities like that between now and the roundtable where I’ll do the same thing. I’ll repeat what I’ve said, I won’t walk away from it, I haven’t changed my view on the GST. I suspect people will bring views to the roundtable about the GST. Let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: Well, of course, the GST can be a bit like a wild dog when it’s let off the leash. You’ll remember when Malcolm Turnbull let Scott Morrison as Treasurer float the idea of changing the GST, and that didn’t end well.
CHALMERS: No, I think I can recall a fascinating part of Malcolm’s book about that, if memory serves, or perhaps something else that he said or wrote subsequently. I’m obviously aware of that history, you know, and there’s ‑ let’s be upfront with each other, Michelle, when you do what I did at the Press Club today and say bring us your ideas and let’s see where there’s some common ground, there’s an element of political risk to that.
There’s a lot of history tied up in a lot of these questions, as you rightly point out in this instance, and I guess I’m demonstrating, or I’m trying to demonstrate, a willingness to hear people out, and there will be people who write about that in a way that tries to diminish this conversation that we’re setting up. That will happen. I’m open to that, relaxed about that, but let’s see what people think about our economy, about productivity, sustainability, tax, resilience, and let’s see if we can’t get around some good ideas that come out of that discussion.
GRATTAN: Which tempts me to ask, will Ken Henry be on your guest list of the famous Henry review?
CHALMERS: I think some people were surprised to see Ken there today at the National Press Club. Ken was there at the Press Club, and I think I said in the question and answer, if memory serves, and I hope it’s okay with Ken that I said this, but we’ve been engaging on drafts of the speech – we talk about some of the big issues in the Press Club speech I gave today.
I’m not sure about the final invite list. Once you start putting together a list of about 25 people, you’ve got some ministerial colleagues, you’ve got peak organisations, including the ACTU, Sally McManus will be there, maybe a community organisation, someone representing the community, some experts. Before long, it’s very easy to hit 25 people.
You’ve planned a few dinner parties in your time, Michelle, and an invite list of 25 people fills up pretty quick. We haven’t finalised that yet, but whether we invite Ken or Ken’s outside the room, he’s one of a number of people that I speak to about these big policy challenges, and regardless, I hope that he’s okay with us continuing to tap his brain.
GRATTAN: Maybe you need to adopt a sort of restaurant approach of rotational sittings.
CHALMERS: Yeah, well! –
GRATTAN: Now, I know you said today that you don’t like gotcha questions and gave us a bit of a lecture ‑‑
CHALMERS: This doesn’t sound like a good introduction, Michelle.
GRATTAN: ‑‑ about that, but your controversial tax on capital gains on superannuation balances that are very big, critics worry that this could in fact be the thin end of the wedge extending to other areas of the tax system. Would you care to rule that out?
CHALMERS: I think I said today, and I’m happy to repeat with you, Michelle, that we haven’t changed our approach here. We’ve got a policy that we announced almost two and a half years ago now, and we intend to proceed with it.
What we’re looking for here is not an opportunity at the roundtable to cancel policies that we’ve got a mandate for; we’re looking for the next round of ideas.
Now again, a bit like some of the other things we’ve been talking about, I suspect people will come either to the roundtable itself or to the big discussion that surrounds it with very strong views, and not unanimous views about superannuation. We read in a couple of our newspapers on an almost daily basis that people have got strong views about the superannuation changes, and not the identical same views, and so I suspect that will continue.
But our priority is to pass the changes that we announced, really some time ago, that we’ve taken to an election now, and that’s how we intend to proceed.
GRATTAN: So, you’re open to considering other views?
CHALMERS: On that particular issue, I think we have a pretty good sense of people’s views. I mean there’s ‑ I don’t pretend for a second that there’s unanimous support for it.
GRATTAN: I mean, extending it to other areas.
CHALMERS: No, I mean that’s not something we’ve been contemplating even for a second, and we haven’t done any work on that, we haven’t had a discussion about that, that’s not our intention.
But more broadly, when it comes to the system, I suspect people will have views about that at the roundtable – but thanks for the opportunity to clarify, we’re not planning for or strategising for extending that in additional ways.
GRATTAN: Now, artificial intelligence is obviously being seen as the next big productivity enhancer when you’re talking about the big things, but it’s also going to cost jobs, and that will exercise the unions.
Your Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has emphasised the unions have a role in this transition, must be consulted, brought into it, but you’ve said that while regulation will matter, and I quote, “We are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails. The emphasis here is different”. Do you see this as being a bit like the tariff reforms in the Hawke/Keating time, when there were big gains to be made but there were also very significant losers, and how do you deal with that situation?
CHALMERS: First of all, I think unions do have a place and a role to play in this. I can’t imagine meaningful progress on AI or technology more broadly where we wouldn’t include unions and workers in that conversation. That wouldn’t be consistent with our approach, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense, so I share Tim’s view on that. I work closely with Tim Ayres and also Andrew Charlton, who will have a key role in some of these policy questions.
The point that I was making was it’s not a choice between regulation or capability, it’s not an either/or. Obviously we need guardrails, obviously we need regulation, but from my point of view, I see this as a game‑changer in our economy, I see it as one of the big ways that will make our economy more productive and lift living standards.
It’s not all downside for workers either – we’re talking about augmenting jobs, we’re talking about some of the routine tasks that are not the most satisfying parts of people’s work, so of course we want to include the union movement, of course we want to make sure that we’ve got appropriate guardrails.
The point that I was making in that interview with the Financial Review which you’re quoting from is that we need to get our capabilities right, we need the right skills base, I think we’ve got a huge opportunity with data centres and the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence, and so that is a big part of the focus of our work. When it comes to productivity, when it comes to growth more broadly, industry policy, our work with the Productivity Commission, data and digital, AI, data centres, all of that I think are going to be key parts of the future economy in Australia.
GRATTAN: The last time we spoke on this podcast, you said you’d been reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and you described it as a ripper. Now I think you’re making all your Cabinet colleagues read it too, and I’m not sure whether they thank you for that, but there it goes.
What are some of the ideas in the book that attracted you, and in particular, do you agree with the thesis that red tape is holding us back, particularly when it comes to housing and renewable energy and the transition to renewables?
CHALMERS: First of all ‑ we should be on a commission for this book, I think, from Andrew Leigh through a whole bunch of colleagues ‑ a lot of us have either read it or are in the process of reading it.
The reason that we are attracted to it is because it really is about working out as progressive people who care deeply about building more homes, rolling out more renewable energy, to make sure that the way we regulate that and approach that doesn’t get in our own way, that we don’t make it harder for us to achieve our big economic goals in the energy transformation; in housing and technology and all of these sorts of things.
What the Abundance book reminds us to do, and I think in a really timely and really punchy way, is it says, “As progressive people, let’s get out of our own way”. A lot of regulation is necessary, so we talk about better regulation, but where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course, we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the Cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators, and we’re going to say, “Please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work”. I suspect from that, maybe not from every regulator, but from some of the regulators, I think if we are genuine about it, I think we can make some progress there to get compliance costs down, to speed up approvals so that we can deliver the things that we truly value as an economy but also as a society, and that’s what the Abundance book’s about.
GRATTAN: Of course, one of the problems is, while this sounds very good, a lot of stakeholders say we need more regulation of this or that, we need to protect flora, fauna, climate, whatever.
CHALMERS: Yeah, of course we do.
GRATTAN: And that all gets in the way of clearing away red tape, doesn’t it?
CHALMERS: We’re not talking about eliminating regulation, we are talking about making sure that it’s better, that we can use regulation in the service of our social and environmental and economic goals, but to make sure that we’re not overdoing it, that it’s not unnecessary, that it doesn’t prevent us achieving our aspirations and our objectives, including in the environment.
I think renewable energy projects are part of the story here, and I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world. People are rethinking their investments, and there’s a lot of interest in Australia, and one of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals.
If we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals as well.
GRATTAN: Another of your priorities is budget sustainability, and you say the Government’s made progress, but there’s a way to go. So, where are you going now? Do you need to make big savings in what areas, or are you really having to look at the revenue side more?
CHALMERS: I think there’s this kind of strange binary analysis of the budget situation. Some people say it doesn’t matter, some people say it’s beyond repair, and obviously, like a lot of things in politics and policy, the truth lies somewhere in between.
We’ve made a heap of progress on the budget; two surpluses, biggest ever nominal turnaround in the budget, we got the debt down, got the interest costs down. But what I acknowledge and what I will continue to acknowledge is there’s always more work to do to make it more sustainable.
For us, we made a heap of progress on aged care, the NDIS and interest costs, but we need to make sure that even when we think about the policy ideas that people bring to us at the roundtable, budget sustainability really matters. Where we do find something that we want to invest more in, we’ve got to consider the trade-offs, we’ve got to work out how to pay for things.
There’s probably not a day, certainly not a week that goes by where Katy Gallagher and I aren’t in one way or another engaging with colleagues on some of these structural pressures on the budget, because they do matter.
GRATTAN: Well, one, of course, is defence spending, and I was interested that you did in your remarks to the Press Club seem, while cautious, while saying, “We’re spending a lot on defence”, you seemed open to the idea that over the next decade governments will have to increase defence spending.
CHALMERS: I think the point I was trying to make there, Michelle, was it would be strange over a period of 10 years if there were no changes to any policy or levels of spending. But the thing that’s not, I think, sufficiently acknowledged is we’ve already quite dramatically increased defence spending, and you know, it’s not easy to find the extra $11 billion we found over the forward estimates, or the almost $58 billion I think we found over the decade.
We are dramatically increasing our defence spending. I acknowledge and accept and respect that some people, including some of our partners, want us to spend more on defence, but we are already spending a heap more on defence, and we’ve had to find room for that in the budget, and that’s what we’ve done.
GRATTAN: So we should be up for that conversation, as Richard Marles would say?
CHALMERS: I think what Richard’s saying, to be fair to him, is that we are more or less continuously engaging with our partners about things like defence spending, and when it comes to the Americans, they’ve made it clear around the world that they want people to spend more on defence. That’s not an unreasonable position for the Americans to put to us. We decide our level of defence spending, and we have decided collectively as a government to dramatically increase it.
GRATTAN: As Treasurer, you’re the gatekeeper for foreign investment decisions, big decisions, and there’s a takeover bid at the moment from Abu Dhabi’s national oil company for Santos. Can you give us some idea of the process, the timetable, when you would make a decision if the matter comes to you?
CHALMERS: This is a really big transaction potentially, and it raises – there are a lot of considerations around the national interest, it’s in a sensitive part of our economy for all of the obvious reasons.
What usually happens with a transaction of this magnitude, tens of billions of dollars, is it goes through a number of stages. One of those stages is a Foreign Investment Review Board process where I’ve got a heap of terrific colleagues in the Treasury who advise me on these things. What I try to do is to make sure that I refrain from commenting on these sorts of deals before I’ve got that Foreign Investment Review Board advice. I take that advice very seriously, and that means not pre‑empting it.
I know that there will be a heap of views, a heap of interest, I do acknowledge it’s a very big transaction which involves a really key sensitive part of our economy, and I’ll do what I always do with these big FIRB approval processes, which is to engage in it in a really methodical and considered way.
That will roll out over the course of the next few months. The last time I asked, which I think was yesterday, we hadn’t ‑ the FIRB hadn’t had a chance to go through or hadn’t received yet the Foreign Investment Review Board proposal. That may have changed since then, but regardless, these things take a little bit of time.
GRATTAN: Before we finish, let’s come back to productivity. You’ve said the work will take more than a term. So just give us a snapshot of where you would want to be at the end of say three years, six years.
CHALMERS: Yeah. The point I’m making there, when it comes to productivity is, unlike some of the other really important measures in our economy, there’s no instant gratification. It’s very hard to flick a switch and get an immediate, substantial, meaningful shift in the data.
The point that I’ve made is that we’re enthusiastic and very committed, very dedicated to doing meaningful things on productivity, but even those things can sometimes take a while to play out in the data, so I’m just really trying to say to people, this is important, it will pay off, some of it will pay off in the medium term and the longer term, but that shouldn’t deter us, the fact that some of these challenges take a little bit longer to fix.
Now, if there was a switch that you could flick to make our economy instantly more productive, somebody would have flicked it already. Unfortunately, there’s not, and so we’re left in a world where we have to do a lot of things at once, and some of those things will take a little while to pay off.
GRATTAN: Can you set any sort of target in terms of growth, annual growth? –
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that.
GRATTAN: – productivity growth.
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that. The budget assumes a level of productivity growth, which is higher than what we are currently seeing, so it wouldn’t be a bad start to try and get closer to the forecast. But I’m reluctant to put a target on it.
GRATTAN: And that forecast is?
CHALMERS: The Treasury changed it to 1.2 per cent, and we’re currently tracking a bit lower than that on the current 20-year average, and so we need to do better. I tried to be quite blunt about that at the Press Club. Our economy is growing, but it’s not productive enough, our budget is stronger, but it’s not sustainable enough, our economy is resilient, but not resilient enough. And this is my way of saying to people, we’ve made a lot of progress together, but we’ve got a further ‑ we’ve got more to do, and productivity is our primary focus in that regard, but not our only focus.
GRATTAN: For really big changes, say for tax changes, do you think you need another mandate or not?
CHALMERS: I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists, and so I don’t like to be evasive with a good question like that, Michelle, but I think that remains to be seen. It will be to be determined once we get a firmer sense of the way forward.
GRATTAN: Just finally, you sounded in your speech rather like a man who’s been liberated since the election. Has your attitude changed? Do you think it’s just time to go for it?
CHALMERS: The way I see this, Michelle, is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics, and so I can kind of hear that clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it.
We’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am by nature impatient, I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here, and so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental. I think we know what the challenges are, we know what people’s views are broadly, there’s no absence of courage, there is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward, and that’s what I’m seeking not just in the roundtable, but in this second term of our Government.
GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, it’s going to be an interesting few months, and thank you for talking with us today. That’s all for today’s podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but good‑bye for now.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Jim Chalmers speaking to the National Press Club June 18, 2025.Screenshot from the ABC Broadcast, CC BY-NC
Jim Chalmers cast his Wednesday National Press Club speech as a second instalment in a two-part presentation that was kicked off by the prime minister in an address there last week.
But it didn’t sound like that at all. In fact, the two performances were chalk and cheese. Albanese’s contribution was cautious, showing no inclination to splash too much of the political capital amassed from a huge election win. The prime minister looks to a legacy of Labor’s longevity in government, and extols a measured and steady style.
In contrast, Chalmers on Wednesday came across as a man on a mission, anxious to seize this term to do bigger things, because no matter how large the majority, you never know what the future holds. And that’s apart from his ambition to ascend to the top rung of the political ladder.
Albanese announced a roundtable in August to discuss productivity; in elaborating on it, Chalmers put the hot button issue of tax reform prominently on the table.
The treasurer believes the community is up for significant economic reforms, if the changes are crafted and sold the right way and if sufficient of that elusive political grape, “consensus”, can be harvested and bottled. He’s also willing to stretch or exceed the electoral mandate Labor won on May 3. Remember, it was Chalmers who wanted to break the Stage 3 tax cut promise long before Albanese did so.
He said on Wednesday: “This is all about testing the country’s reform appetite. […] I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit. The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we’ll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.” He was heartened, post election, by a “welcome and encouraging discussion about the level of ambition that Australia has”.
Albanese was involved in Chalmers’ Press Club speech, even interacting on its points from Canada, where he was attending the G7. Either the prime minister is deliberately letting his treasurer “front run” a more ambitious agenda for the government, or he doesn’t choose to get in his way.
Albanese announced the roundtable, but Chalmers is in charge of it. Held in the cabinet room on August 19-21, it will be small and, Chalmers hopes, non-performative. Details are still being finalised, but Chalmers doesn’t anticipate “permanent cameras” in the cabinet room, which has just 25 seats around the table.
“We want participants to make contributions that meet three important preconditions,” he said.
“First, ideas should be put forward in the national interest, not through the prism of sectoral, state or vested interests.
“Second, ideas or packages of ideas should be budget neutral at a minimum but preferably budget positive overall, taking into account the necessary trade-offs.
“And third, ideas should be specific and practical not abstract or unrealistic.
“In return I give everyone this commitment: we won’t come at this from an ideological point of view but from the practical, pragmatic and problem-solving middle ground we’re most comfortable on.”
Chalmers argues that last term, the government did a range of things on tax. But most would describe them as modest, and he would not then contemplate a major overhaul, such as a shift from direct to indirect tax.
He was seared, on his own admission, from his days as then treasurer Wayne Swan’s staffer, by the memory of the Henry tax review, the last major look at Australia’s tax system. That triggered Labor’s mining tax debacle which helped end the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd. Most of that valuable review was totally wasted.
Now Ken Henry, former head of treasury, has had input into Chalmers’ Press Club speech; he was in the audience to hear it.
“Australia has to recognise that this is genuinely a defining decade. The decisions we make in the 2020s will determine the sort of living standards and intergenerational justice that will have in the decades to come,” Chalmers said. Intergenerational justice is a major preoccupation of Henry’s.
If Henry is in Chalmers’ ear, another proponent of tax reform, Steven Kennedy, who has just left the post of secretary of the treasury, is well-placed to be in the prime minister’s ear. Kennedy has just become head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
While the roundtable is focused on “productivity” Chalmers emphasised he is also focused on budget sustainability.
“Tax reform is important to budget sustainability , but also to productivity.
“I think it would be unusual if I said to the country, we’re going to have this big national reform conversation about productivity, sustainability and resilience, but nobody’s allowed to talk about tax
“And so I anticipate, I welcome the fact that people will come to the roundtable, outside the roundtable, people will pitch up ideas about tax.
“We don’t see that as an opportunity to walk back on some of the things that we’re already committed to, in this case, some years ago. We see it as an opportunity to work out what the next steps might be.”
Chalmers is the latest treasurer to walk down the tax reform road. The stakes are high. It will be easy to slip, or be forced to lose ambition. On the other hand, if he can navigate the rocks it will make his reputation.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal 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.
Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers — including nine king’s counsel — have signed a letter demanding Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and two other ministers urge the government to take a stronger stand against Israel’s “catastrophic” actions in Gaza.
The letter has been sent amid rising tensions in the region, following Israel’s surprise attacks on Iran last Friday, and Iran’s retaliatory attacks.
A statement by the Justice For Palestine advocacy group said the letter’s signatories represented all levels of seniority in the legal community, including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers.
The letter cited the 26 July 2024 joint statement by the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which acknowledged: “The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The human suffering is unacceptable. It cannot continue.”
“But it has continued,” said the letter. “The plight of the civilian population in Gaza has significantly deteriorated, featuring steadily escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement of civilians, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists.”
Obligations under international law In September last year, New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling on all UN member states to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the Justice For Palestine statement.
At the time, New Zealand had noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law, including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter stated that Israel had done nothing of the sort.
Part of the lawyers’ letter appealing to the NZ government for a stronger stance over Israel. Image: J4P
The letter points out that last month independent UN experts had demanded immediate international intervention to “end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.”
UN experts have observed more than 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children, said the statement.
The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, had called for a response “as humanitarians” urging “Humanity, the law and reason must prevail”.
The Justice For Palestine letter urged the government to consider a stronger response, including:
condemning Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
reviewing immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and
imposing further sanctions after New Zealand had imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians.
Rising concern over Israeli breaches One of the letter’s signatories, barrister Max Harris, said:
“This letter reflects rising concern among the general community about Israel’s breaches of international law.
“The Government has tried to highlight red lines for Israel, but these have been repeatedly crossed, and it’s time that the Government considers doing more, in line with international law,”
Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister, who signed the letter, said: “The government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.”
“This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel’s actions,” she added.
Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers — including nine king’s counsel — have signed a letter demanding Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and two other ministers urge the government to take a stronger stand against Israel’s “catastrophic” actions in Gaza.
The letter has been sent amid rising tensions in the region, following Israel’s surprise attacks on Iran last Friday, and Iran’s retaliatory attacks.
A statement by the Justice For Palestine advocacy group said the letter’s signatories represented all levels of seniority in the legal community, including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers.
The letter cited the 26 July 2024 joint statement by the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which acknowledged: “The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The human suffering is unacceptable. It cannot continue.”
“But it has continued,” said the letter. “The plight of the civilian population in Gaza has significantly deteriorated, featuring steadily escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement of civilians, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists.”
Obligations under international law In September last year, New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling on all UN member states to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the Justice For Palestine statement.
At the time, New Zealand had noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law, including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter stated that Israel had done nothing of the sort.
Part of the lawyers’ letter appealing to the NZ government for a stronger stance over Israel. Image: J4P
The letter points out that last month independent UN experts had demanded immediate international intervention to “end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.”
UN experts have observed more than 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children, said the statement.
The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, had called for a response “as humanitarians” urging “Humanity, the law and reason must prevail”.
The Justice For Palestine letter urged the government to consider a stronger response, including:
condemning Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
reviewing immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and
imposing further sanctions after New Zealand had imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians.
Rising concern over Israeli breaches One of the letter’s signatories, barrister Max Harris, said:
“This letter reflects rising concern among the general community about Israel’s breaches of international law.
“The Government has tried to highlight red lines for Israel, but these have been repeatedly crossed, and it’s time that the Government considers doing more, in line with international law,”
Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister, who signed the letter, said: “The government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.”
“This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel’s actions,” she added.
Many gay and bisexual men have been excluded from donating blood and plasma (the liquid portion of blood) for decades because of rules developed during the HIV crisis in the 1980s.
The Australian Red Cross’ blood donation arm, Lifeblood, has announced these restrictions will be lifted. This opens donation pathways for many gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men.
What’s changing for plasma donation?
From July 14, Lifeblood will remove sexual activity-based restrictions for plasma donation for medicines made with plasma, except for those who’ve recently had sex with a partner known to have HIV or another blood-borne virus.
This world-first “plasma pathway” policy will allow most people, including gay and bisexual men, to donate plasma immediately regardless of sexual activity, provided they meet other criteria.
What’s changing for other blood donation?
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a gender-neutral risk assessment for blood and platelet donations.
Under this system, all donors, regardless of gender, will be asked if, in the past six months, they have had sex (excluding oral sex) with a new partner or more than one partner.
If they answer “yes” to either question, they will be asked if they’ve had anal sex in the past three months. Those who say “yes” will be deferred from donating whole blood for six months, due to the higher risk of HIV transmission during anal sex and the time it takes for HIV to be detected in a test. But they will still be eligible to donate plasma.
So gay and bisexual men in long-term, monogamous relationships will no longer need to abstain from sex for three months to donate whole blood.
Why were past restrictions in place?
In the 1980s, HIV transmission through blood transfusions prompted urgent public health responses. Australia, like many countries, introduced an indefinite deferral for men who have sex with men, the population most affected by HIV.
This policy significantly reduced transmission of HIV via blood transfusions before HIV testing became available.
Routine blood donation testing for HIV began in 1985, but initial tests could not detect HIV for up to three months after infection.
As testing improved, the deferral was reduced – first to 12 months in 2000, then to three months since last sexual activity in 2021.
Why the changes?
Rates of new HIV infection have fallen substantially since the 1980s. In 2023, 722 new HIV cases were reported nationwide (2.7 per 100,000 population).
Modern tests can now detect HIV within one week of exposure, dramatically reducing the risk of transfusion transmission.
However, the blanket deferral still applied regardless of individual risk – such as if the men had only one partner. As a result, many low-risk men remained excluded.
Why the different rules for blood and plasma?
Whole blood is separated into red cells, plasma and platelets. This is the regular process of giving blood, where blood is drawn, then it goes through the testing process to check it’s safe.
These components are mainly used for transfusion directly to patients without further processing.
Plasma, the yellow liquid part, contains proteins used in treatments for immune disorders, severe burns and other conditions.
During plasma donation, a machine separates the plasma (the yellow liquid part) from the red blood cells and other parts of blood. The machine keeps the plasma, and returns the red blood cells to the donor through the same needle.
Plasma for plasma medicines, the blood product in most demand in Australia, is processed using extra techniques that kill viruses and bacteria, allowing for less-strict donation rules compared to whole blood.
How many more people will become eligible under the new rules?
A national survey we jointly conducted with Lifeblood found an estimated 57% of Australians, and 63% of Australian men, were eligible to donate blood. Among men who reported sex with men, eligibility was only 40%.
Under the new plasma pathway, overall eligibility is projected to rise to 61%, and to 74% for gay and bisexual men – an increase of around 626,500 newly eligible plasma donors. This will include people taking HIV-PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis), which protects against HIV infection.
The impact of gender-neutral risk assessments on blood donation eligibility is less certain.
How will people feel being asked about their sexual history?
The same survey found most Australians supported being asked how many partners they have had and whether they’d had anal sex to see if they were eligible to donate. However, support varied across age, religion and country of birth.
Understanding and responding to these differences will be important for community engagement and maintaining trust in the blood supply.
Will this affect the safety of the blood supply?
The gender-neutral questions aim to identify high-risk sexual activity, regardless of someone’s gender or sexual orientation. The questions still restrict anyone from donating who has recently had anal sex with multiple or new sexual partners.
From July 14, the rules for plasma donation will change, allowing plasma donation regardless of sexual activity.
The TGA’s approval of gender-neutral blood assessments has only just been granted. Lifeblood will now need to update systems, seek government approvals, train staff and inform the public before this change can be rolled out.
Ongoing evaluation will be essential to monitor the impact on donor numbers, safety and public perception, and to ensure blood donation policies are evidence-based and equitable.
Yasmin Mowat recieves funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Grant, implemented with Lifeblood.
Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Skye McGregor receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal 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 Big Picture Podcast host, New Zealand-Egyptian journalist and author Mohamed Hassan, interviews Middle East Eye editor-in-chief David Hearst about the rapidly unfolding war between Israel and Iran, why the West supports it, and what it threatens to unleash on the global order.
What does Israel really want to achieve, what options does Iran have to deescalate, and will the United States stop the war, or join it as is being hinted?
Hearst says the war is “more dangerous than we imagine” and notes that while most Western leadership still backs Israel, there has been a strong shift in world public opinion against Tel Aviv.
He says Israel has lost most of the world’s support, most of the Global South, most African states, Brazil, South Africa, China and Russia.
Hearst says the world is witnessing the “cynical tailend of the colonial era” among Western states.
The era of peace is over. Video: Middle East Eye
Iran ‘unlikely to surrender’ Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, says Iran is unlikely to “surrender to American terms” and that there is a risk the war on Iran could “bring the entire region down”.
Vaez told Al Jazeera in an interview that US President Donald Trump “provided the green light for Israel to attack Iran” just two days before the president’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, was due to meet with the Iranians in the Oman capital of Muscat.
Imagine viewing, from the Iranian perspective, Trump giving the go-ahead for the attack while at the same time saying that diplomacy with Tehran was still ongoing, Vaez said.
Now Trump “is asking for Iranian surrender” on his Truth Social platform, he said.
“I think the only thing that is more dangerous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is actually surrendering to American terms,” Vaez said.
“Because if Iran surrenders on the nuclear issue and on the demands of President Trump, there is no end to the slippery slope, which would eventually result in regime collapse and capitulation anyway.”
Most Americans oppose US involvement Meanwhile, a new survey has reported that most Americans oppose US military involvement in the conflict.
The survey by YouGov showed that some 60 percent of Americans surveyed thought the US military should not get involved in the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran.
Only 16 percent favoured US involvement, while 24 percent said they were not sure.
Among the Democrats, those who opposed US intervention were at 65 percent, and among the Republicans, it was 53 percent. Some 61 percent of independents opposed the move.
The survey also showed that half of Americans viewed Iran as an enemy of the US, while 25 percent said it was “unfriendly”.
The Big Picture Podcast host, New Zealand-Egyptian journalist and author Mohamed Hassan, interviews Middle East Eye editor-in-chief David Hearst about the rapidly unfolding war between Israel and Iran, why the West supports it, and what it threatens to unleash on the global order.
What does Israel really want to achieve, what options does Iran have to deescalate, and will the United States stop the war, or join it as is being hinted?
Hearst says the war is “more dangerous than we imagine” and notes that while most Western leadership still backs Israel, there has been a strong shift in world public opinion against Tel Aviv.
He says Israel has lost most of the world’s support, most of the Global South, most African states, Brazil, South Africa, China and Russia.
Hearst says the world is witnessing the “cynical tailend of the colonial era” among Western states.
The era of peace is over. Video: Middle East Eye
Iran ‘unlikely to surrender’ Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, says Iran is unlikely to “surrender to American terms” and that there is a risk the war on Iran could “bring the entire region down”.
Vaez told Al Jazeera in an interview that US President Donald Trump “provided the green light for Israel to attack Iran” just two days before the president’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, was due to meet with the Iranians in the Oman capital of Muscat.
Imagine viewing, from the Iranian perspective, Trump giving the go-ahead for the attack while at the same time saying that diplomacy with Tehran was still ongoing, Vaez said.
Now Trump “is asking for Iranian surrender” on his Truth Social platform, he said.
“I think the only thing that is more dangerous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is actually surrendering to American terms,” Vaez said.
“Because if Iran surrenders on the nuclear issue and on the demands of President Trump, there is no end to the slippery slope, which would eventually result in regime collapse and capitulation anyway.”
Most Americans oppose US involvement Meanwhile, a new survey has reported that most Americans oppose US military involvement in the conflict.
The survey by YouGov showed that some 60 percent of Americans surveyed thought the US military should not get involved in the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran.
Only 16 percent favoured US involvement, while 24 percent said they were not sure.
Among the Democrats, those who opposed US intervention were at 65 percent, and among the Republicans, it was 53 percent. Some 61 percent of independents opposed the move.
The survey also showed that half of Americans viewed Iran as an enemy of the US, while 25 percent said it was “unfriendly”.
The Victorian parliament has launched a long-overdue inquiry into abuse and coercive control within cults and religious fringe groups.
It is a welcome acknowledgement of the damage that can flourish under the guise of faith, and the unquestioning obedience to authoritarian leaders in religious groups.
The inquiry will hear victim-survivors can suffer a diverse range of harms, including sexual, financial and labour exploitation, spiritual manipulation, and institutional betrayal.
Abusive practices
Geelong state MP Christine Couzens says the Geelong Revival Centre has caused a great deal of hurt. Parliament of Victoria, CC BY
The inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.
Prompted by recent events, including reports of coercive behaviour at the Geelong Revival Centre, the inquiry will examine “the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control”.
According to the committee’s guidance note, the focus will be on techniques that can damage individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially and even physically.
Importantly, the inquiry will interrogate “abusive practices”, not the beliefs behind them:
There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour. “Freedom of religion” is not freedom, for example, to defraud, nor is it freedom to cause significant psychological harm to any person.
Consideration will be given to whether the law adequately protects people when cults and fringe groups cause the types of harm that should be criminalised.
Sexual control
My research examined the sexual exploitation of congregation members perpetrated by pastors within evangelical, Pentecostal faith communities in Australia.
Respondents described feeling broken, shattered, and spiritually battered. The harms were similar to those experienced by survivors of incest, child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
For example:
72% of respondents were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder
52% suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
48% were diagnosed with depression
48% experienced suicidal ideation.
As American sociologist and cult expert Janja Lalich explains:
Sexual control is seen as the final step in the objectification of the cult member by the authoritarian leader, who is able to satisfy his needs through psychological manipulation leading to sexual exploitation.
Power imbalance
My research uncovered instances of sexual exploitation by pastors that constitutes a form of sexual violence and coercive control. The absence of a centralised reporting body means there is no accessible data on the extent of clergy sexual exploitation of adults in Australian faith communities.
However, international research found around 3% of churchgoing women had been subjected to sexual advances from a married religious leader.
Too often, institutions downplay the abuse as a “moral failing” or a mutual lapse into sin, ignoring the profound power imbalance that makes meaningful consent impossible.
Pastor-congregant relationships are not consensual; they are violations of trust and authority. Survivors are often left with no pathways to justice or support because coercive control is not recognised in non-intimate settings.
Search for belonging
Victim-survivors would benefit from legal reform that formally recognises and criminalises this form of abuse.
Coercive control legislation covering institutional and spiritual settings, would help protect congregation members targeted by predator pastors.
I was recruited into a Pentecostal church as a teenager through a Bible college that was allowed into my public high school to “preach the gospel”. I know firsthand how easily these environments can entrap teenagers at an age when many are seeking identity outside of family.
The parliamentary inquiry is not designed to question people’s religion, but to protect them from harmful behaviour. SibRapid/Shutterstock
What began as a search for belonging led to years of grooming and coercion, and it took over two decades to name and report the abuse. The response from the church was just as harmful as the abuse itself.
Fear and shame
The harms often extend beyond sexual exploitation in many of these groups. Marginalised individuals are particularly vulnerable in these environments.
LGBTQIA+ people in some evangelical churches have historically been subjected to conversion practices masquerading as prayer, counselling, or pastoral care. In one recent example, an evangelical church in New South Wales preached from the pulpit:
A gay person is at least three times more likely to kill themselves. A transsexual is 15 times more likely to kill themselves. So if you are a parent and you love your kids make sure they are not gay or trans.
This kind of messaging doesn’t protect children – it instils fear, shame, and self-hatred. It reflects a deeper pattern of spiritual abuse that pathologises identity and uses fear to exert control. The consequences are devastating, especially for young people already struggling to reconcile faith, identity, and belonging.
Template for reform
Many people fail to grasp how intelligent adults can become trapped in such environments.
But coercive control is not about intelligence – it’s about power, dependency, and the slow erosion of critical thinking by spiritual authority.
While coercive control in family violence is finally being addressed, spiritual and sexual coercive control within faith communities, cults, and fringe groups remains in a legal blind spot.
This is exactly why the Victorian probe and follow-up law reform are both necessary.
The inquiry should provide a framework for other states and territories to follow suit and scrutinise cults and organised fringe groups in their own jurisdictions.
Lead author Jaime Simpson is a survivor of sexual exploitation in an evangelical community. The research mentioned is this article was conducted by her.
Jaime Simpson received a Higher Degree Research tuition off-set to complete her Master in Philosophy
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation ARTFinc), the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation (ISNF) and the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme.
The Victorian parliament has launched a long-overdue inquiry into abuse and coercive control within cults and religious fringe groups.
It is a welcome acknowledgement of the damage that can flourish under the guise of faith, and the unquestioning obedience to authoritarian leaders in religious groups.
The inquiry will hear victim-survivors can suffer a diverse range of harms, including sexual, financial and labour exploitation, spiritual manipulation, and institutional betrayal.
Abusive practices
Geelong state MP Christine Couzens says the Geelong Revival Centre has caused a great deal of hurt. Parliament of Victoria, CC BY
The inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.
Prompted by recent events, including reports of coercive behaviour at the Geelong Revival Centre, the inquiry will examine “the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control”.
According to the committee’s guidance note, the focus will be on techniques that can damage individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially and even physically.
Importantly, the inquiry will interrogate “abusive practices”, not the beliefs behind them:
There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour. “Freedom of religion” is not freedom, for example, to defraud, nor is it freedom to cause significant psychological harm to any person.
Consideration will be given to whether the law adequately protects people when cults and fringe groups cause the types of harm that should be criminalised.
Sexual control
My research examined the sexual exploitation of congregation members perpetrated by pastors within evangelical, Pentecostal faith communities in Australia.
Respondents described feeling broken, shattered, and spiritually battered. The harms were similar to those experienced by survivors of incest, child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
For example:
72% of respondents were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder
52% suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
48% were diagnosed with depression
48% experienced suicidal ideation.
As American sociologist and cult expert Janja Lalich explains:
Sexual control is seen as the final step in the objectification of the cult member by the authoritarian leader, who is able to satisfy his needs through psychological manipulation leading to sexual exploitation.
Power imbalance
My research uncovered instances of sexual exploitation by pastors that constitutes a form of sexual violence and coercive control. The absence of a centralised reporting body means there is no accessible data on the extent of clergy sexual exploitation of adults in Australian faith communities.
However, international research found around 3% of churchgoing women had been subjected to sexual advances from a married religious leader.
Too often, institutions downplay the abuse as a “moral failing” or a mutual lapse into sin, ignoring the profound power imbalance that makes meaningful consent impossible.
Pastor-congregant relationships are not consensual; they are violations of trust and authority. Survivors are often left with no pathways to justice or support because coercive control is not recognised in non-intimate settings.
Search for belonging
Victim-survivors would benefit from legal reform that formally recognises and criminalises this form of abuse.
Coercive control legislation covering institutional and spiritual settings, would help protect congregation members targeted by predator pastors.
I was recruited into a Pentecostal church as a teenager through a Bible college that was allowed into my public high school to “preach the gospel”. I know firsthand how easily these environments can entrap teenagers at an age when many are seeking identity outside of family.
The parliamentary inquiry is not designed to question people’s religion, but to protect them from harmful behaviour. SibRapid/Shutterstock
What began as a search for belonging led to years of grooming and coercion, and it took over two decades to name and report the abuse. The response from the church was just as harmful as the abuse itself.
Fear and shame
The harms often extend beyond sexual exploitation in many of these groups. Marginalised individuals are particularly vulnerable in these environments.
LGBTQIA+ people in some evangelical churches have historically been subjected to conversion practices masquerading as prayer, counselling, or pastoral care. In one recent example, an evangelical church in New South Wales preached from the pulpit:
A gay person is at least three times more likely to kill themselves. A transsexual is 15 times more likely to kill themselves. So if you are a parent and you love your kids make sure they are not gay or trans.
This kind of messaging doesn’t protect children – it instils fear, shame, and self-hatred. It reflects a deeper pattern of spiritual abuse that pathologises identity and uses fear to exert control. The consequences are devastating, especially for young people already struggling to reconcile faith, identity, and belonging.
Template for reform
Many people fail to grasp how intelligent adults can become trapped in such environments.
But coercive control is not about intelligence – it’s about power, dependency, and the slow erosion of critical thinking by spiritual authority.
While coercive control in family violence is finally being addressed, spiritual and sexual coercive control within faith communities, cults, and fringe groups remains in a legal blind spot.
This is exactly why the Victorian probe and follow-up law reform are both necessary.
The inquiry should provide a framework for other states and territories to follow suit and scrutinise cults and organised fringe groups in their own jurisdictions.
Lead author Jaime Simpson is a survivor of sexual exploitation in an evangelical community. The research mentioned is this article was conducted by her.
Jaime Simpson received a Higher Degree Research tuition off-set to complete her Master in Philosophy
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation ARTFinc), the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation (ISNF) and the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme.
Israel’s major military operation against Iran has targeted its nuclear program, including its facilities and scientists, as well as its military leadership.
In response, the United Nations Security Council has quickly convened an emergency sitting. There, the Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon defended Israel’s actions as a “preventative strike” carried out with “precision, purpose, and the most advanced intelligence”. It aimed, he said, to:
dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, eliminate the architects of its terror and aggression and neutralise the regime’s ability to follow through on its repeated public promise to destroy the state of Israel.
So, what does international law say about self-defence? And were Israel’s actions illegal under international law?
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There are only two exceptions:
when the UN Security Council authorises force, and
when a state acts in self-defence.
This “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”, as article 51 of the UN charter puts it, persists until the Security Council acts to restore international peace and security.
So what’s ‘self-defence’ actually mean?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has consistently interpreted self-defence narrowly.
In manycases, it has rejected arguments from states such as the United States, Uganda and Israel that have sought to promote a more expansive interpretation of self-defence.
The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point. The UN Security Council affirmed in resolutions 1368 and 1373 that the right to self-defence extends to defending against attacks by non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. The US, invoking this right, launched its military action in Afghanistan.
The classic understanding of self-defence – that it’s justified when a state responds reactively to an actual, armed attack – was regarded as being too restrictive in the age of missiles, cyberattacks and terrorism.
This helped give rise to the idea of using force before an imminent attack, in anticipatory self-defence.
The threshold for anticipatory self-defence is widely seen by scholars as high. It requires what’s known as “imminence”. In other words, this is the “last possible window of opportunity” to act to stop an unavoidable attack.
As set out by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2005:
as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate, this would meet the accepted interpretation of self defence under article 51.
As international law expert Donald Rothwell points out, the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defence hinges on factual scrutiny and strict criteria, balancing urgency, legality and accountability.
This argued new threats – such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction – justified using force to forestall attacks before they occurred.
Critics, including Annan, warned that if the notion of preventive self-defence was widely accepted, it would undermine the prohibition on the use of force. It would basically allow states to act unilaterally on speculative intelligence.
if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorise such action if it chooses to.
If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment – and to visit again the military option.
This is exactly what Israel has failed to do before attacking Iran.
Lessons from history
Israel’s stated goal was to damage Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon that could be used against it.
This is explicitly about preventing an alleged, threatened, future attack by Iran with a nuclear weapon that, according to all publicly available information, Iran does not currently possess.
This is not the first time Israel has advanced a broad interpretation of self-defence.
As international law stands, unless an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable, such strikes are likely to be considered unlawful uses of force.
While there is still time and opportunity to use non-forcible means to prevent the threatened attack, there’s no necessity to act now in self defence.
Diplomatic engagement, sanction, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program — such as through the International Atomic Energy Agency — remain the lawful means of addressing the emerging threat posed by Tehran.
Preserving the rule of law
The right to self-defence is not a blank cheque.
Anticipatory self-defence remains legally unsettled and highly contested.
So were Israel’s attacks on Iran a legitimate use of “self-defence”? I would argue no.
I concur with international law expert Marko Milanovic that Israel’s claim to be acting in preventive self-defence must be rejected on the facts available to us.
In a volatile world, preserving these legal limits is essential to avoiding unchecked aggression and preserving the rule of law.
Shannon Bosch 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.
Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.
WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.
It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.
But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.
3 billion users
WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.
It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.
Advanced cyber capability
The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.
But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.
Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.
Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.
A historical precedent
Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.
Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.
These kinds of attacks often use “spearphishing”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.
Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.
A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.
Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’
To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.
Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.
Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.
David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ever since modern environmentalism took off in the 1960s, people have tried to undo the damage humans have caused to nature. Efforts have ranged from reducing threats, to restoring habitats, to reintroducing vanished species – and the results have been mixed.
However, these efforts have helped shape modern conservation science. This branch of knowledge uses ecological, genetic and behavioural insights to guide smarter, more ethical conservation actions.
Governments often use this science to decide whether restoration projects should be approved. However, approval processes may be slow, under-resourced and complex, leaving passionate people feeling shut out.
In response, some have turned to “guerilla rewilding” without approval, and often without due consideration of the potential for unintended impacts. As a recent ABC investigation showed, these passionate souls may release species into the wild or build self-managed sanctuaries, often dismissing scientists as “purists”.
What is rewilding?
Rewilding aims to restore wildlife and natural processes to ecosystems where they’ve been lost, often due to land clearing, agriculture or other human activities.
It may involve reintroducing a species that has disappeared from a landscape, or using a similar surrogate species to revive lost ecological functions. The goal is to rebuild functioning, self-sustaining systems. It’s not just about individual species, but the roles they play in sustaining nature.
In Australia, rewilding typically takes place in fenced reserves or on islands where invasive predators such as foxes and cats have been removed. These barriers offer protection, but require intensive planning, long-term management and ongoing funding.
The term “rewilding” itself has been criticised for harking back to a pre-colonial “wilderness”, overlooking First Nations’ connections to Country. But the goal of these projects is to restore ecological function and self-sustaining wildlife populations in shared, lived-in landscapes – including urban environments.
When done well, rewilding can support species recovery, repair ecosystems, and help reconnect people with nature. But success depends on evidence-based design, clear goals, ongoing monitoring, and (often) additional management over time (such as adding or removing animals).
Guerilla rewilding is risky
Guerrilla rewilding can go wildly wrong. Ecology, evolution, behaviour and welfare are deeply complex — and every species is a unique part of a much larger puzzle.
Scientists and conservationists are still learning how different animals survive and thrive in changing environments. Restoring these delicate systems without unintended consequences is also a challenge.
Successful rewilding draws on decades of ecological insight — genetics, behaviour, predator-prey dynamics, health, and ecosystem function.
Guerilla rewilders may see these as unnecessary academic add-ons. But when reintroductions fail, it’s often because one of these elements was overlooked. Frequently reported problems include animal behaviour, monitoring difficulties, quality of release habitat, and lack of baseline knowledge.
However, accessing the science – and navigating the approvals that rely on it – isn’t always easy. Conservation processes are often slow, under-resourced and opaque. It’s no surprise some view them as “green tape”.
In Australia, it can be easier to get permission to clear land than to restore it. Matt Palmer / Unsplash
Yet bypassing this system risks repeating old mistakes. So if we want rewilding to work, we need to make it easier to engage with evidence, expertise and ethical safeguards.
Engagement may be as simple as working with the right partners from the outset. This may include Traditional Owners, universities, non-government organisations, and local conservation and environmental community groups.
Collaboration, not conflict
A lot of people and groups have the same goal: to restore thriving wild animal populations as part of more complete, diverse and resilient ecosystems. That outcome is best achieved through collaboration, sharing of expertise, and trust.
Traditional Owners, scientists, carers, zoos, non-government organisations and government agencies all bring crucial knowledge. By turning shared passion into practical, evidence-based action, we can ensure rewilding efforts contribute to real, lasting outcomes for Australian and global biodiversity.
So what does this look like in practice? First of all, it’s about getting connected.
People with land or passion to contribute can contact organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, WWF-Australia, Arid Recovery, several universities, or state parks and wildlife services. These groups have likely already done the groundwork, from habitat assessment to long-term planning. Joining existing efforts may get more done than starting solo.
Policymakers can contribute not only funding, but also transparency. More open and understandable approval processes may lower the barriers for community-led rewilding efforts.
As for scientists like us, we need to step beyond peer-reviewed papers. That means clearer communication, real-world partnerships, and embracing outreach – particularly in urban or accessible rewilding projects.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Banks, Donna Houston, Phil McManus, Catherine Grueber and Mareshell Wauchope to this article.
Patrick Finnerty is the current director for early career ecology at the Ecological Society of Australia, the Early Career Coordinator at the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and a council member for the Royal Zoological Society of NSW. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Alex Carthey is the founding Director of ReHabitat Pty Ltd. She receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is the immediate past-Treasurer and recently ex-Council member of the NSW Royal Zoological Society.
Benjamin Pitcher is a Co-funded Research Fellow in Behavioural Biology at Macquarie University and Taronga Conservation Society Australia. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NSW Environmental Trust.
John Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Thomas Newsome receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is immediate past-president of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society and President of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Photograph by Robert Walker, Eric Smith in the studio, c.1973 black and white photograph, 52cmx42cm. Barbara Smith Collection. Used with permission
There are many routes to artistic obscurity. The surest path, of course, is to have never been discovered in the first place. But this wasn’t the case with the late Eric Smith (1919-2017).
Rather, Smith’s is a story of a major artist who quite simply, and unexpectedly, vanished from public life.
The Raising of Lazarus, 1953, oil on composition board, 91cmx82cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
A new exhibition at the Macquarie University Art Gallery, which I am co-curating, will display a range of Smith’s work – including paintings from the last four decades of his career that have never been shown before.
From fame to phantom
Smith was an artist constantly in search of ways to “express truths in our times”, and employed diverse ways of doing so across a career that included religious paintings, portraits and large abstract works.
Between his breakthrough year in 1956, when he won the first of six Blake Prizes with The Scourged Christ, and 1982, when he won the last of his three Archibalds with a portrait of Peter Sculthorpe, Smith was as lauded as an artist could be.
He had a significant role in launching Australian abstract expressionism in the famous group show, Direction 1. His art was installed in churches and public buildings, and collected by major institutions. He was quoted and photographed in the press.
Then, while working as prolifically as ever, he seemed to disappear. Why?
Rudy Komon, 1981, oil on canvas, 184.1cm x 172.4cm x 3.9cm. Art Gallery of New South Wales, purchased 1982.
The death of Rudy Komon
Rudy Komon was a Czech emigrant and a larger than life bon vivant and gallerist who launched the careers of many of Australia’s finest painters.
Komon represented Smith, who he called “meister”, from 1963 and throughout the most publicly productive part of Smith’s career. Smith even won the 1981 Archibald with a painting of Komon.
However, Komon died the following year.
And according to David Taylor, an art collector and later a patron of Smith’s, “Eric’s art career died with him”.
“When Rudy died Eric had no one to connect him to the art world anymore. He was a modest man and no self-publicist,” Taylor explained to me.
“It was pretty much only me that was left buying his paintings.”
And there were a lot of paintings. Despite Smith’s exhibiting career grinding to a near halt, with no major-gallery shows after 1989, he spent the next four decades on an 8am to 6pm studio regime punctuated only by lunch and tea breaks.
Untitled [Fool’s Gold], 2004, oil on canvas, 164.5cm x 204.5cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
“He’d finish just in time for the 6pm news”, Barbara Smith told me.
Barbara is Smith’s daughter and the manager of his legacy.
“Dad was always driven by what he saw as the challenges in his work and resolving them in the studio.”
Smith was also heavily self-critical. He admitted to destroying more than half of his artistic output – completely repainting or throwing away paintings that didn’t meet his vision.
At the age of 90, ever the self-critic and despite his successes, he said to his family: “You can’t change styles like I did and hope to get anywhere.”
Forms that express deeper feelings
Smith converted to Catholicism in the 1950s and was a life-long consumer of art-history and philosophy. These tendencies can be seen in his 1950s religious paintings and later abstract works.
The Scourged Christ, 1956, oil on composition board, 116cm x 85cm. Gift of Hugh Jamieson, Penrith Regional Gallery Collection.
In the 1950s he found inspiration in the works of the Fauvist painter Georges Rouault, and later in the works of Alfred Manessier. We see these influences in the bold outlines and church-window-esque colours used in paintings such as The Raising of Lazarus (1953) and The Scourged Christ (1956).
Smith’s later large abstract paintings such as Eternity I (1998), Orange Dawn (1999) and Untitled (Fools Gold) (2004) are evidence of his artistic quest to “find forms that express the deeper feelings” he wanted to convey.
Orange Dawn, 1999, oil on canvas, 171cm x 213cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
Smith was also skilled in portraiture, as evidenced by his depictions of fellow artists Leonard Hessing, Norman Lindsay, Louis James and Hector Gilliland, as well as his Archibald-winning portrait of Rudy Komon.
His luminous Portrait of Diane (1998), a family friend and patron, is a particularly powerful image which Smith described as his Mona Lisa.
Portrait of Diane, 1998, oil on canvas, 69cm x 50cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
It’s easy to see why writer and critic Paul McGillick argues Smith should be considered “one of Australia’s most visionary portraitists”.
Yet, without exhibitions and dealers and auctioneers to champion him over the decades, Smith’s work has largely vanished from the public.
Then again, “not having exhibitions didn’t bother him too much, it was the painting and process that really mattered to him,” said Barbara.
An exhibit 40 years in the making
Luckily for posterity, a number of Smith’s masterpieces survived his destructive self-critique.
These works, which are now mostly privately held, will be on display at Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint. It is the first major exhibition of Smith’s work since the 1980s, and the first retrospective or survey of his work since his death in 2017.
“I’m sure Dad would have been extremely excited and honoured,” Barbara said.
Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint is showing at the Macquarie University Art Gallery from June 19 to August 1.
Tom Murray works for Macquarie University and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 18, 2025.
Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University Atlas Moth (_Attacus wardi_) Garry Sankowsky/flickr, CC BY When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals,
Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury Zhang Jianyong/Xinhua via Getty Images This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades. Yet, ironically, the
Why a US court allowed a dead man to deliver his own victim impact statement – via an AI avatar Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James D Metzger, Senior Lecturer in Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney Composite image: Arrington Watkins Architects / AI avatar: YouTube/StaceyWales, CC BY In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation. Horcasitas was
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”. But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning? What’s the difference anyway? What’s gastroenteritis?
Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University Rachel Moore From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes. Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge:
Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace ANALYSIS: By Matt Fitzpatrick, Flinders University In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat. The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding
Solomon Islanders safe but unable to leave Israel amid war on Iran RNZ Pacific The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining
We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney skynesher/Getty Images We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges. The most recent national survey
Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result
Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University The Conversation, CC BY-NC The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth. Productivity is essentially
How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney rarrarorro/Shutterstock The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it
Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Universal Pictures Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear
As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests. But there is arguably a
The story of the journalist on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, David Robie Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member. COMMENTARY: By Emma Page I was on the
As Israeli attacks draw tit-for-tat missile responses from Iran and shuts Haifa refinery, Gaza genocide continues Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation. The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced. Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they
View from the Hill: Cancelled Albanese-Trump meeting a setback on tariffs, AUKUS Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president. There was always a risk of derailment by outside events,
Decoding PNG leader Marape’s talks with French President Macron ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests. The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector. From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within
Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program. But Netanyahu has made clear another
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran. Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 18, 2025.
Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University Atlas Moth (_Attacus wardi_) Garry Sankowsky/flickr, CC BY When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals,
Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury Zhang Jianyong/Xinhua via Getty Images This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades. Yet, ironically, the
Why a US court allowed a dead man to deliver his own victim impact statement – via an AI avatar Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James D Metzger, Senior Lecturer in Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney Composite image: Arrington Watkins Architects / AI avatar: YouTube/StaceyWales, CC BY In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation. Horcasitas was
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”. But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning? What’s the difference anyway? What’s gastroenteritis?
Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University Rachel Moore From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes. Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge:
Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace ANALYSIS: By Matt Fitzpatrick, Flinders University In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat. The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding
Solomon Islanders safe but unable to leave Israel amid war on Iran RNZ Pacific The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining
We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney skynesher/Getty Images We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges. The most recent national survey
Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result
Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University The Conversation, CC BY-NC The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth. Productivity is essentially
How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney rarrarorro/Shutterstock The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it
Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Universal Pictures Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear
As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests. But there is arguably a
The story of the journalist on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, David Robie Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member. COMMENTARY: By Emma Page I was on the
As Israeli attacks draw tit-for-tat missile responses from Iran and shuts Haifa refinery, Gaza genocide continues Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation. The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced. Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they
View from the Hill: Cancelled Albanese-Trump meeting a setback on tariffs, AUKUS Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president. There was always a risk of derailment by outside events,
Decoding PNG leader Marape’s talks with French President Macron ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests. The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector. From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within
Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program. But Netanyahu has made clear another
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran. Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by
