When it was time for Horcasitas to be sentenced by a judge, Pelkey’s family knew they wanted to make a statement – known as a “victim impact statement” – explaining to the judge who Pelkey had been when he was alive.
They found they couldn’t get the words right.
The solution for them turned out to be having Pelkey speak for himself by creating an AI-generated avatar that used his face and voice, allowing him to “talk” directly to the judge.
In Arizona, a judge allowed an AI avatar of a deceased crime victim to “read” an impact statement.
This marked the first time a United States court had allowed an AI-generated victim to make this kind of beyond-the-grave statement, and likely the first time something like this had occurred anywhere in the world.
How was the AI avatar made and received?
The AI avatar was created by Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales and her husband Tim, with Stacey writing the words “spoken” by Pelkey – words that were not taken from anything he actually said when he was alive but based on what she believed he would have said.
Stacey Wales explained how she came to create an AI video of her brother to allow him to deliver his own victim impact statement.
The avatar was created by using samples of Pelkey’s voice from videos that had been recorded before his death and photos the family had of him – specifically a photo used at his funeral.
In the video, Pelkey “says” he believes in forgiveness and “a God who forgives”, and that “in another life” he and Horcasitas could have been friends.
After the video was played in court, Judge Todd Lang, who had allowed the AI statement to be delivered, stated he “loved” the AI, adding he “heard the forgiveness” contained in it. He further stated he felt the forgiveness was “genuine”.
Judge Todd Lang’s reaction to Chris Pelkey’s AI victim impact statement.
In the end, Horcasitas was sentenced to the maximum of ten-and-a-half years – more than the nine years the prosecution was seeking but equal to what Pelkey’s family asked for in their own victim impact statements.
Could this happen in Australia?
In general, court rules are similar across Australian states and territories and it would be unlikely these technological advances would be acceptable in Australian sentencing courts.
These rules allow victims or their families to read their statement to courts, but this is limited to written statements usually edited by the prosecution, although victims may include drawings and photos where approved.
A victim will generally read their own statement to the court. However, where the victim has died, family members can make a statement speaking to their own trauma and loss.
Sometimes victims ask the prosecutor to read their statement, or the prosecutor merely hands over a written statement to the judge.
To date, no Australian court has permitted family members to speak for the deceased victim personally and family members are generally limited to describing harms they have directly suffered.
Victims may also be cross-examined by defence counsel on the statements’ content.
Creating an AI avatar would be time-consuming and expensive for prosecutors to edit. Cross-examination by the defence would be impossible.
Compared to the US, there is generally far less tolerance in Australian courts for dramatic readings of statements or using audio-visual materials.
In the US, victims enjoy greater freedom to invoke emotions, explore personal narratives and even show videos of the deceased, all to give the court a better sense of the victim as a person.
The use of an AI avatar, therefore, is not too far from what is already allowed in most US courts.
Despite these allowances, there is still concern the emotional impact of a more direct statement from an AI victim could be used to manipulate the court by putting words into the victim’s virtual mouth.
As can be seen in the Arizona sentencing, Judge Lang was clearly affected by the emotions generated by the AI Pelkey.
Changes to Australian law would be needed to ban use of AI recordings specifically. But even without such changes, Australian sentencing practice is already so restrictive as to essentially preclude such technology.
It seems Australia is some ways from joining Arizona in allowing an AI avatar of a deceased person speaking from “beyond the grave”.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
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 accompanying celebrations and the legislation that declares Matariki a public holiday miss the mark. They fail to promote and protect the country’s dark skies, which are crucial to seeing the stars in this small constellation.
While the law recognises Matariki’s significance to Māori culture and heritage as the beginning of the Māori New Year, it does not acknowledge that it is predicated on the visual presence of the star cluster.
Even where Matariki is not visible owing to weather conditions, the ability to see other celestial markers is important (for example Puanga/Puaka, also known as Rigel). Light pollution is a visual barrier to experiencing these important stars.
Since the passage of the legislation, local councils across the country have marked the public holiday with various light displays. This year will be no different, with illuminated artworks, projections and lightboxes at Matariki festivals in several cities.
Tirama Mai (bringing the light) will return to Ōtautahi Christchurch with brightly lit displays. Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland will see some of its most popular sites, including Queen Street, lit up as part of Tūrama, a series of large-scale, illuminated art installations.
After initially ignoring Māori advice that fireworks are not appropriate to celebrate Matariki, many local councils have now abandoned them. But festivities will no doubt continue to contribute to light pollution and ignore the need to protect dark skies at night.
These ill-conceived festivities are not surprising given the legislation fails to even mention dark skies. This is exacerbated by New Zealand emerging as a major player in the increasingly commercialised space sector which has developed rapidly since the first rocket lifted off from Mahia peninsula in 2017.
Much of Aotearoa’s landmass has some of the darkest skies on the planet. Based on land area, 74% of the North Island and 93% of the South Island rest beneath night skies that are either pristine or degraded only near the horizon. Indeed, the area affected by direct illumination is very low.
Yet, intense urbanisation means only 3% of the population regularly experience such skies. About half of all New Zealanders can no longer see the Milky Way in winter.
At present, there is no explicit domestic law protecting dark skies, nor any international laws. The law declaring Matariki a public holiday missed an important opportunity to provide such protection.
To address this issue, a petition was presented to parliament in January 2023 calling for national legislation to promote and protect dark skies. In March this year, parliament responded it would not take further actions “due to other priorities on the government’s resource management reform work programme”.
This is not surprising. Nevertheless, we call on the government to develop legislation for the governance of dark skies in Aotearoa New Zealand that incorporates mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge).
While there are a variety of ways this could be achieved, controlling light pollution is the crux of the issue. Light pollution emanates both from unmitigated urban lighting as well as the expansion of satellite constellations, which is steadily forming a global net of moving points of light in space.
An incremental approach could be a government-backed education programme to raise awareness of light pollution, followed by the development of a national policy for its control. An amendment to the Matariki public holiday law could then follow in recognition of the national interest.
We are aware the challenges ahead are many. Yet, protecting dark skies is vital from a Māori perspective. Practically, such protections are crucial to the enjoyment and honouring of Matariki as we continue to risk disconnection from one of our most important natural features.
Shea Esterling receives funding from the Borrin Foundation.
William Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When 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, spiders and many many more. These creatures make us happy, pollinate flowers, keep soils healthy, clean water, build reefs, maintain oceans and bring colour and wonder to our homes, cities, farms and wild places.
When a mammal or bird goes extinct in Australia, it’s big news. But invertebrates have gone extinct much more frequently – and with much less attention. Since colonisation, an estimated 9,000 invertebrates have gone extinct – and one or two more go extinct every week.
Invertebrates face five big challenges: climate change, habitat destruction, natural resource extraction, pollution and invasive species. For the most part, efforts to conserve them are in their infancy in Australia, likely due to the historic undervaluing of smaller animals and little critters. There are shining exceptions such as the incredible conservation success of the Lord Howe Island stick insect, but such examples are vanishingly rare.
The good news? Because invertebrates live everywhere, the opportunity to help is often literally on our doorsteps. Simple actions can help, such as planting native species, leaving logs in the garden and avoiding insecticides.
Meet some of the threatened one thousand
Threatened invertebrates live in every Australian state and territory and in our major cities. Of the almost 1,000 threatened species, 27% are snails and slugs, 25% are insects, 19% are corals, 17% are crayfish and 5% are spiders. Here are some you may come across.
Bogong moth (Agrotis infusa). These moths once filled the night skies in their billions. Now they’re listed as endangered because the cool alpine caves they rely on to escape summer heat are warming with climate change. These migratory moths fly across southern Australia, navigating to their mountain refuges each summer using the stars and earth’s magnetic field. Help map their migration to protect them.
Bogong moths migrate to cool caves in the Australian Alps in summer. Kate Umbers, CC BY
Atlas moth (Attacus wardi). This giant tropical moth with a 22 cm wingspan is now considered vulnerable due to habitat destruction and introduced weeds. If you live near Darwin, planting the native Atlas Croton tree will help feed its very hungry caterpillars.
Mangrove ant-blue butterfly (Acrodipsas illidgei). These endangered butterflies lay eggs on grey mangrove trees home to acrobat ants (Crematogaster species), which carry the eggs into its nests. When the caterpillars hatch, they eat ant larvae while in turn nourishing the ant colony with sugary secretions. Mangrove destruction, pesticide runoff and threats to their ant partners pose real threats. Protecting mangroves in southeast Queensland and reporting sightings of butterflies and ants on iNaturalist will help.
Sydney Hawk dragonfly (Austrocordulia leonardi). This strikingly coloured endangered dragonfly is largely found in Sydney. Changes to local waterways and the deep pools its aquatic larvae need threaten the species. Restoring local waterways will help.
Dural land snails (Pommerhelix duralensis). These endangered snails are found only in north-western Sydney and the lower Blue Mountains. They cruise through leaves and rocks munching on fungi and helping add compost to forest soils. You might catch a glimpse during light rain. Help them by leaving large patches of undisturbed native undergrowth – habitat loss poses the biggest threat.
Hairy bee (Leioproctus douglasiellus). This critically endangered burrowing bee lives only in and around Perth. Its numbers have fallen due to habitat loss and pesticides. Leaving patches of open soil in your garden and planting shallow flowers can help these short-tongued bees get nectar.
Giant Gippsland earthworm (Megascolides australis). This iconic earthworm can grow up to 1.5 metres long. It only lives in a patch of southern Gippsland in Victoria and is endangered in part due to farming practices such as ploughing. These gentle giants famously gurgle as they move through their tunnels keeping soil healthy. Local landholders can help by leaving patches of land along stream banks as worm conservation habitat.
Tasmanian live-bearing sea stars (Parvulastra vivipara). Most sea stars lay eggs. Not this species, which gives birth to live young. They’re endangered because they live in intertidal waters of south-eastern Tasmania affected by shoreline development and invasive species. Look carefully and you might see one as it grazes on algae-covered rocks. Join local events to tackle invasive species and log any sightings on iNaturalist.
Invertebrates bring us delight and wonder. Here’s how we can help those in trouble.
Plant flowers. Providing food for pollinators and other wonderful flower-visiting insects can help year-round.
Keep part of your garden a bit wild. If you leave logs, leaves and open soil in your garden, you make space for shiny beetles, singing crickets, native bees and other ground-dwellers.
The creek is beautiful. Help restore waterways, make a pond, learn about local water bugs and support local wetlands.
Be clever with pest control. Avoid snail baits and cancel regular broad-spectrum sprays, as these can harm many non-target species. Use critter-friendly alternatives to protect the whole food chain.
Let the stars shine. Switch off lights at night if safe or close your curtains to help nocturnal creatures such as moths and orb-weaving spiders.
Log your sightings. Conservation scientists need as much data as possible on invertebrates to understand how they are doing out there. Upload your bug photos to iNaturalist.
Kate Umbers receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Commonwealth DCCEEW, Hermon Slade Foundation, and Holsworth Foundation. She is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia, Biodiversity Council, co-chair of the IUCN Grasshopper Specialist Group, and is on the Conservation Committee for the Australian Entomological Society.
Kenny Wolfe is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Megan Head is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Shawan Chowdhury is affiliated with Monash University and Invertebrates Australia.
Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia
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?
Gastroenteritis, or gastro for short, is a gut infection caused by a virus, bacterium or other microbe.
The gut is teeming with cells including healthy microbes and the cells lining the gut. But when viruses, bacteria and other microbes start to invade your gut, they colonise, build up in large numbers and eventually cause the cells lining the gut to inflame. The “-itis” at the end of gastroenteritis means inflammation.
So where do these gastro-causing microbes come from? Eating contaminated food is often the source.
However you can acquire these microbes in other ways. For example, if you touch a surface where someone sick from viral gastroenteritis had vomited on, that virus could transfer to your hands. And if your hands touched your mouth, you in turn could contract viral gastroenteritis.
What’s food poisoning?
Food poisoning refers to getting sick from eating food contaminated with chemicals, microbes or toxins.
For example if you ate food contaminated with insecticides or methyl alcohol (methanol) that would count as food poisoning. If you ate puffer fish or poisonous mushrooms that would count too. But food poisoning doesn’t include the effects of eating a food you’re allergic to.
The vast majority of food poisonings are as a result of food contaminated by microbes and their toxins. When you eat or drink them it’s like a missile strike. The toxins in particular can rapidly cause inflammation and damage the lining of the gut.
Food poisoning (or foodborne gastroenteritis) is also common in Australia. It accounts for about one-third of all cases of gastroenteritis or an estimated 5.4 million cases every year.
How can we tell the two apart?
Both gastroenteritis and food poisoning have symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever and headaches. But these symptoms can come on in different ways.
Viral gastroenteritis, such as with norovirus, usually causes symptoms 24–48 hours after exposure, which can last for one to two days.
But food poisoning after eating microbial toxins can come on very quickly. For example, toxins from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus can cause symptoms within 30 minutes of eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat. Fortunately, symptoms usually get better within 24 hours.
Symptoms don’t always come on so quickly in all cases of bacterial food poisoning. For example, it can take as long as 70 days between exposure to Listeria and symptoms occurring, although, on average it’s about three weeks. This long incubation period can make it difficult to work out if a particular food is responsible for someone getting sick.
As a general guide food poisoning occurs quite quickly (within hours of eating contaminated food) while gastroenteritis can take a day or more after eating to get sick. But there is no hard and fast rule.
It can take weeks from eating soft cheese contaminated with Listeria before you have symptoms. In Green/Shutterstock
How do I prevent them?
The same precautions when handling food apply to preventing both gastroenteritis and food poisoning. These steps not only lower your risk of being affected in the first place, they lower your risk of you infecting others.
Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before preparing food. Use separate cutting boards and utensils for raw and cooked foods to help avoid cross-contamination. Cook food thoroughly and store it at safe temperatures.
Gastroenteritis can involve transmission of microbes through means other than food, for instance, via poo on your hands if you don’t wash your hands after using the toilet or after changing a child’s nappy. So wash your hands afterwards.
To prevent others from becoming sick, make sure you quickly disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. First, put on gloves and wash surfaces with hot water and a detergent. Then disinfect using household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite.
How can I get better?
Treating both gastroenteritis and food poisoning focuses on preventing dehydration and relieving symptoms.
To avoid dehydration, drink plenty of fluids. For moderate or severe cases, you can buy commercial oral rehydration solution from a pharmacy.
You can also make your own oral rehydration solution by adding 6 teaspoons of sugar, ½ teaspoon of salt and ½ teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to a litre of water. You can splash in some cordial for taste.
If symptoms are severe or persist you should see your GP or go to the emergency department.
Vincent Ho 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.
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: how to get oxygen, heat and nutrients to every part of their bodies efficiently.
Our new study, published today in Royal Society Open Science, shows that sharks follow a centuries-old mathematical rule – the two-thirds scaling law – that predicts how body shape changes with size. This tells us something profound about how evolution works – and why size really does matter.
What is the two-thirds scaling law?
The basic idea is mathematical: surface area increases with the square of body length, while volume increases with the cube. That means surface area increases more slowly than volume, and the ratio between the two – crucial for many biological functions – decreases with size.
This matters because many essential life processes happen at the surface: gas exchange in the lungs or gills, such as to take in oxygen or release carbon dioxide, but also heat loss through skin and nutrient uptake in the gut.
These processes depend on surface area, while the demands they must meet – such as the crucial task of keeping the body supplied with oxygen – depend on volume. So, the surface area-to-volume ratio shapes how animals function.
Whale sharks are as big as buses, while dwarf lanternsharks (pictured here) are as small as a human hand. Chip Clark/Smithsonian Institution
Despite its central role in biology, this rule has only ever been rigorously tested in cells, tissues and small organisms such as insects.
Until now.
Why sharks?
Sharks might seem like an unlikely group for testing an old mathematical theory, but they’re actually ideal.
For starters, they span a huge range of sizes, from the tiny dwarf lantern shark (about 20 centimetres long) to the whale shark (which can exceed 20 metres). They also have diverse shapes and lifestyles – hammerheads, reef-dwellers, deep-sea hunters – each posing different challenges for physiology and movement.
Plus, sharks are charismatic, ecologically important and increasingly under threat. Understanding their biology is both scientifically valuable and important for conservation.
Sharks are ecologically important but are increasingly under threat. Rachel Moore
How did we test the rule?
We used high-resolution 3D models to digitally measure surface area and volume in 54 species of sharks. These models were created using open-source CT scans and photogrammetry, which involves using photographs to approximate a 3D structure. Until recently, these techniques were the domain of video game designers and special effects artists, not biologists.
We refined the models in Blender, a powerful 3D software tool, and extracted surface and volume data for each species.
Then we applied phylogenetic regression – a statistical method that accounts for shared evolutionary history – to see how closely shark shapes follow the predictions of the two-thirds rule.
Sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, as seen in this 3D representation. Joel Gayford et al
What did we find?
The results were striking: sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, with surface area scaling to body volume raised to the power of 0.64 – just a 3% difference from the theoretical 0.67.
This suggests something deeper is going on. Despite their wide range of forms and habitats, sharks seem to converge on the same basic body plan when it comes to surface area and volume. Why?
One explanation is that what are known as “developmental constraints” – limits imposed by how animals grow and form in early life – make it difficult, or too costly, for sharks to deviate from this fundamental pattern.
Changing surface area-to-volume ratios might require rewiring how tissues are allocated during embryonic development, something that evolution appears to avoid unless absolutely necessary.
But why does it matter?
This isn’t just academic. Many equations in biology, physiology and climate science rely on assumptions about surface area-to-volume ratios.
These equations are used to model how animals regulate temperature, use oxygen, and respond to environmental stress. Until now, we haven’t had accurate data from large animals to test those assumptions. Our findings give researchers more confidence in using these models – not just for sharks, but potentially for other groups too.
As we face accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss, understanding how animals of all sizes interact with their environments has never been more urgent.
This study, powered by modern imaging tech and some old-school curiosity, brings us one step closer to that goal.
Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society, as President.
Joel Gayford receives funding from the Northcote Trust.
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 regular contact with the students.
Ambassador Cornelius Walegerea said that given the volatile nature of the current situation, the safety of their citizens in Israel — particularly the students — remained their top priority.
“Once the airport reopens and it is deemed safe for them to travel, the students will be able to return home.”
The five Solomon Islands students have undertaken agricultural training at the Arava International Centre for Agriculture in Israel since September 2024.
The students completed their training on June 5 and were scheduled to return home on June 17.
The students have been advised to strictly follow instructions issued by local authorities and to continue observing all precautionary safety measures.
Ministry updates The ministry will continue to provide updates as the situation develops.
Its travel advisory, issued the day Israel attacked Iran last Friday, said the ministry “wishes to advise all citizens not to travel to Israel and the region”.
Citizens studying in Israel were told they “should now make every effort to leave Israel”.
Meanwhile, a friend of a New Zealander stuck in Iran said the NZ government needed to help provide safe passage, and that the advice so far had been “vague and lacking any substance whatsover”.
The woman told RNZ the advice from MFAT until yesterday had been to “stay put”, before an evacuation notice was issued.
MFAT declined interview MFAT declined an interview, but told RNZ it had heard from a small number of New Zealanders seeking advice about how to depart from Iran and Israel.
It would not provide any further detail regarding those individuals.
MFAT said the airspace was currently closed over both countries, which would likely continue.
The agency understood departure via land border crossings had been taking place, but that carried risks and New Zealanders “should only do so if they feel it is safe”.
Meanwhile, the NZ government said visitors from war zones in the Middle East could stay in New Zealand until it was safe for them to return home.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
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 of the unseen is rooted in our survival instincts as a species.
Cinematic sound and music taps into these somewhat unsettling instincts – and this is exactly what director Steven Spielberg and composer John Williams achieved in the iconic 1975 thriller Jaws. The sound design and musical score work in tandem to confront the audience with a mysterious killer animal.
In what is arguably the film’s most iconic scene, featuring beach swimmers’ legs flailing underwater, the shark remains largely unseen – yet the sound perfectly conveys the threat at large.
Creating tension in a soundtrack
Film composers aim to create soundscapes that will profoundly move and influence their audience. And they express these intentions through the use of musical elements such as rhythm, harmony, tempo, form, dynamics, melody and texture.
In Jaws, the initial encounter with the shark opens innocently with the sound of an offshore buoy and its clanging bell. The scene is established both musically and atmospherically to evoke a sense of isolation for the two characters enjoying a late-night swim on an empty beach.
But once we hear the the low strings, followed by the central two-note motif played on a tuba, we know something sinister is afoot.
This compositional technique of alternating between two notes at an increasing speed has long been employed by composers, including by Antonín Dvořák in his 1893 work New World Symphony.
John Williams reportedly used six basses, eight cellos, four trombones and a tuba to create the blend of low frequencies that would go on to define his entire Jaws score.
The bass instruments emphasise the lower end of the musical frequency spectrum, evoking a dark timbre that conveys depth, power and intensity. String players can use various bowing techniques, such as staccato and marcato, to deliver dark and even menacing tones, especially in the lower registers.
Meanwhile, there is a marked absence of tonality in the repeating E–F notes, played with increasing speed on the tuba. Coupled with the intensifying dynamics in the instrumental blend, this accelerating two-note motif signals the looming danger before we even see it – tapping into our instinctive fear of the unknown.
The use of the two-note motif and lower-end orchestration characterises a composition style that aims to unsettle and disorientate the audience. Another example of this style can be heard in Bernard Herrmann’s car crash scene audio in North by Northwest (1959).
Similarly, in Sergei Prokofiev’s Scythian Suite, the opening of the second movement (Dance of the Pagan Gods) uses an alternating D#–E motif.
The elasticity of Williams’ motif allows the two notes to be played on different instruments throughout the soundtrack, exploring various timbral possibilities to induce a kaleidoscope of fear, panic and dread.
The psychology behind our response
What is it that makes the Jaws soundtrack so psychologically confronting, even without the visuals? Music scholars have various theories. Some suggest the two notes imitate the sound of human respiration, while others have proposed the theme evokes the heartbeat of a shark.
Williams explained his approach in an interview with the Los Angeles Times:
I fiddled around with the idea of creating something that was very … brainless […] Meaning something could be very repetitious, very visceral, and grab you in your gut, not in your brain. […] It could be something you could play very softly, which would indicate that the shark is far away when all you see is water. Brainless music that gets louder and gets closer to you, something is gonna swallow you up.
Williams plays with the audience’s emotions throughout the film’s score, culminating in the scene Man Against Beast – a celebration of thematic development and heightened orchestration.
The film’s iconic soundtrack has created a legacy that extends beyond the visual. And this suggests the score isn’t just a soundtrack – but a character in its own right.
By using music to reveal what is hidden, Williams creates an intense emotional experience rife with anticipation and tension. The score’s two-note motif showcases his genius – and serves as a sonic shorthand that has kept a generation behind the breakers of every beach.
Alison Cole 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 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 a “disgusting abomination”.
Foreign investors have already been rattled by Trump’s upending of the global trade system. The eruption of war in the Middle East would usually lead to “flight to safety” buying of the US dollar, but the dollar has barely budged. That suggests US assets are not seen as the safe haven they used to be.
Greg Combet, chair of Australia’s own sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, outlined many of the new risks arising from US policies in a speech on Tuesday.
As investors turn cautious on the US, at some point the surging US debt pile will become unsustainable. That could risk a financial crisis. But at what point does that happen?
The public sector holds a range of debt
When talking about the sustainability of US government debt, we have to distinguish between total debt and public debt.
Public debt is owed to individuals, companies, foreign governments and investors. This accounts for about 80% of total US debt. The remainder is intra-governmental debt held by government agencies and the Federal Reserve.
Public debt is a more correct measure of US government debt. And it is much less than the headline total government debt amount that is frequently quoted, which is running at US$36 trillion or 121% of GDP.
Are there limits to government debt?
Governments are not like households. They can feasibly roll over debt indefinitely and don’t technically need to repay it, unlike a personal credit card. And countries such as the US that issue debt in their own currency can’t technically default unless they choose to.
Debt also serves a useful role. It is the main way a government funds infrastructure projects. It is an important channel for monetary policy, because the US Federal Reserve sets the benchmark interest rate that affects borrowing costs across the economy. And because the US government issues bonds, known as Treasuries, to finance the debt, this is an important asset for investors.
There is probably some limit to the amount of debt the US government can issue. But we don’t really know what this amount is, and we won’t know until we get there. Additionally, the US’s reserve currency status, due to the US dollar’s dominant role in international finance, gives the US government more leeway than other governments.
Interest costs are surging
What is important is the government’s ability to service its debt – that is, to pay the interest cost. This depends on two components: growth in economic activity, and the interest rate on government debt.
If economic growth on average is higher than the interest rate, then the government’s effective interest cost is negative and it could sustainably carry its existing debt burden.
The interest cost of US government debt has surged recently following a series of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation.
The US government is now spending more on interest payments than on defence – about US$882 billion annually. This will soon start crowding out spending in other areas, unless taxes are raised or further spending cuts made.
Recent policy decisions not helping
The turmoil caused by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and heightened uncertainty about future government policy are expected to weaken US economic growth and raise inflation. This, coupled with the recent credit downgrade of US government debt by ratings agency Moody’s, is likely to put upward pressure on US interest rates, further increasing the servicing cost of US government debt.
Moody’s cited concerns about the growth of US federal debt. This comes as the US House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts indefinitely while slashing social spending. This has caused some to question the sustainability of the US government’s fiscal position.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add a further US$3 trillion to government debt over the ten years to 2034, increasing debt to 124% of GDP. And this would increase to US$4.5 trillion over ten years and take debt to 128% of GDP if some tax initiatives were made permanent.
Also troubling is Section 899 of the bill, known as the “revenge tax”. This controversial provision raises the tax payable by foreign investors and could further deter foreign investment, potentially making US government debt even less attractive.
A compromised Federal Reserve is the next risk
The passing of the tax and spending bill is unlikely to cause a financial crisis in the US. But the US could be entering into a period of “fiscal dominance”, which is just as concerning.
In this situation, the independence of the Federal Reserve might be compromised if it is pressured to support the US government’s fiscal position. It would do this by keeping interest rates lower than otherwise, or buying government debt to support the government instead of targeting inflation. Trump has already been putting pressure on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, demanding he cut rates immediately.
This could lead to much higher inflation in the US, as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, and more recently in Argentina and Turkey.
Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959)
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 the art of earning more while working less and is critical for driving our standard of living higher.
The Productivity Commission, tasked with figuring out how to get Australia’s sluggish productivity back on track, is pushing hard for corporate tax cuts as a key part of their plan for building a “dynamic and resilient economy”.
The idea? Lower taxes will attract more foreign investment, get businesses spending again and eventually boost workers’ productivity.
Commission chair, Danielle Wood, said last week while the commission wanted to create more investment opportunities, it was aware this would hit the budget bottom line:
So we’re looking at ways to spur investment while finding other ways we might be able to pick up revenue in the system.
The general company tax rate is currently 30% for large firms, and there’s a reduced rate of 25% for smaller companies with an overall turnover of less than A$50 million.
What the textbooks and other countries tell us
The Productivity Commission’s theory makes sense: if you make capital cheaper and you should get more of it flowing in.
A larger stock of capital means there is more to invest in Australian workers. This should make us more productive and help boost workers’ wages. And looking overseas, the evidence mostly backs this up.
A meta-analysis of 25 studies covering the US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland,
Denmark, Portugal and Finland found every percentage point you slice off the corporate tax rate brings in about 3.3% more foreign direct investment.
Other research shows multinational companies really do move their operations to places with lower tax rates. This explains why we’re seeing this race to the bottom across Europe and North America, with countries constantly trying to undercut each other.
Research on location decisions shows how multinationals reshuffle their operations based on effective average tax rates.
Even within the United States, a US study found increases in corporate tax rates lead to big reductions in employment and wage income. However, corporate tax cuts can boost economic activity – though typically only if they are implemented during recessions.
Australia’s limited track record
Here in Australia we don’t have much local evidence to go on, and what we do have is pretty puzzling.
This matters because Australia’s corporate tax system has some unique features that may make overseas evidence less relevant. We have dividend imputation (franking credits), different treatment of capital gains, access to immediate reimbursement for some small business expenses and complex capitalisation rules that limit debt deductions for multinationals.
The Federal Government is focussed on improving productivity. In this five-part series, we’ve asked leading experts what that means for the economy, what’s holding us back and their best ideas for reform.
A study by a group of Australian National University economists looked at how the tax system affects business investment. They examined the [2015 and 2016 corporate tax cuts] for small businesses using data on business investment from the Australian Bureau of Statistics combined with tax data from the Australian Tax Office.
The findings were mixed. After the 2015 cut, firms already investing in buildings and equipment spent more — that is, the policy boosted investment only at the intensive margin.
By contrast, there was no evidence it enticed firms that had not been investing to start doing so. The follow-up cut in 2016 had even less bite. Its estimated effect on investment was so small it is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
It remains unclear why the previous corporate tax reductions largely failed to produce a measurable increase in investment. Perhaps the tax cut itself was simply too modest. Or the available data was too volatile to capture its effects.
But it runs contrary to what economic theory tells us to expect. This should give us pause for thought.
The big questions nobody can answer yet
For politicians thinking about another round of corporate tax cuts, this creates an uncomfortable situation. We’ve got solid evidence from overseas it works, but only one weak data point from Australia, plus a lot of head-scratching about why the second cut didn’t move the dial.
Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has the in-house expertise to further investigate this question.
Before we make further cuts to the company tax rate, we should have an in-depth study of these two tax cuts replicating and extending the previous work to see what effect – if any – they had on investment, employment, productivity and Australian living standards.
Until we can solve these puzzles, Australia’s debate over corporate tax rates will keep spinning its wheels. Much like our national productivity itself.
Isaac Gross 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 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 in 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year – almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions.
Emissions embedded in Australia’s exports do not count towards our national emissions targets. But they contribute to climate change – and they’re the reason for Australia’s international reputation as a fossil-fuel economy.
On the bright side, Australia boasts huge potential for low-cost renewable energy and a knack for resource industries.
We can, and should, become a “renewable energy superpower”. This term refers to the potential for Australia to use its bountiful renewable energy resources to make commodities such as iron, ammonia and other products and fuels in “green” or low-emissions ways.
So how does Australia give salience to this idea on the global stage, while our fossil fuel exports continue? The solution could be a new net-zero target for Australia, in which emissions from green exports are tallied up against those from fossil fuel exports.
Australia can become a renewable energy superpower. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Reinvigorating Australia’s climate policy
If the clean energy transition eventuates, green exports from Australia will rise over time. This will help reduce the use of coal, gas and oil elsewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, coal exports – and later, gas exports – will fall. This will happen irrespective of Australia’s policies, as the world economy decarbonises and demand for fossil fuels slows.
At some point, we can expect emissions avoided by our green commodity exports to surpass those from remaining coal and gas exports. Australia would then reach what could be termed “net-zero export emissions”.
Adopting this net-zero target as a national policy would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s green-export ambitions. It could also invigorate Australia’s climate policy and boost investor confidence.
A different approach would be to set targets only for green exports, and this could be how we get started. Ultimately, a net-zero target wrapping up both green and fossil-fuel exports would speak most directly to the goal of tackling climate change, and is likely to have more impact on the international stage.
A net-zero export target would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s ambition to develop green export industries. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Getting to net-zero exports
The below chart shows an illustrative decline in emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG (liquified natural gas) exports, out to 2050.*
Authors’ calculations based on Australian Energy Update 2024, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2024, IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
It’s hard to pin down when Australia might reach net-zero exports. It depends on several factors. How quickly will the cost of clean energy and green-commodity technologies fall? How competitively can Australia produce green goods compared to other nations? What policies will be adopted in Australia and overseas – and will they work?
The magnitudes are sobering. Take iron, for example. Australia currently exports 900 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This is processed overseas to about 560 million tonnes of iron.
To fully compensate for emissions currently embedded in Australia’s coal and gas exports, Australia would need to process about the same amount of green iron – around 550 million tonnes – on home soil every year.
Achieving this would require keeping iron ore production at current levels and processing it all in Australia, which is unlikely to be realistic.
Thankfully, the task of reaching net-zero export emissions will be smaller in future, as global coal and gas demand falls. But exactly how this will translate to Australian exports is highly uncertain.
In this case, embedded emissions from Australia’s coal and gas exports would be about 360 million tonnes in 2050. This includes about 120 million tonnes from LNG exports – much of it locked in by the extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project off Western Australia.
Hypothetically, the 360 million tonnes of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports. They include 102 million tonnes of green iron (saving 204 million tonnes of CO₂), and 11 million tonnes of greenammonia (saving about 23 million tonnes of CO₂), and the remainder covered by a combination of green aluminium, silicon, methanol and transport fuels.
Judgement calls would be needed about which commodities to include in the target. The composition of green exports suggested above is akin to assumptions about Australia’s potential global market share outlined by The Superpower Institute.
Importantly, it’s hard to predict with certainty the greenhouse gas emissions displaced elsewhere in the world by Australia’s green exports. So, the estimates should be understood as broad illustrations, and not as exact as the accounting used to calculate countries’ domestic emissions.
The precise year chosen for reaching a net-zero target for export emissions may well be less important than the commitment that, at some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. This would establish the notion that Australia has the capacity and willingness to help the world decarbonise.
At some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. David Gray/Getty Images
A positive agenda for change
The export target could be part of Australia’s updated emissions pledge due to be submitted to the United Nations by September this year. The pledge, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is required by signatories to the Paris Agreement.
Each nation is expected to detail its national emissions target for 2035. But nations can make additional pledges towards the world’s climate change effort. You could call it an “NDC+”.
So Australia could outline an indicative goal for net-zero exports – perhaps alongside other pledges such as leveraging climate change finance for developing countries, or helping our Pacific neighbours adapt to climate change impacts.
As a large fossil fuels exporter, Australia would earn kudos for showing it has a positive agenda for change.
And if Australia wins the bid to host the COP31 climate conference next year, a plan to reduce export emissions could be a major rallying point.
* Underlying data for the chart showing an expected decline in future emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG exports:
Exports for 2035 and 2050: this assumes a trend aligned with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario, as outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2024. Note the percentage changes from 2023 to 2035 and 2050 for coal (-45% and -73% respectively) and for LNG (+9% and -47% respectively.) These figures do not distinguish between steam coal for power and metallurgical coal.
Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel.
Annette Zou works on research projects on climate policy and decarbonisation and has previously worked with The Superpower Institute
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
We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges.
The most recent national survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found nearly two in five (38.8%) 16- to 24-year-olds experienced symptoms of a mental disorder in the previous 12 months.
This was substantially higher than the last time the survey was run in 2007, when the figure was 26%.
We’ve published a new study today looking at the rates of mental health problems among Australian high school students specifically. We found almost one in four high school students report mental health problems by Year 10 – and things are worse for girls and gender-diverse teens.
Tracking teens’ mental health
In our study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, we looked at mental health symptoms in more than 6,500 Australian teens, and how these symptoms changed over time.
We surveyed high school students from 71 schools annually from Year 7 (age 12/13) to Year 10 (age 15/16). Our sample, while not nationally representative, includes a large cross-section of schools in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
We found symptoms of mental health problems increased steadily over time:
in Year 7, 17% of students we surveyed reported symptoms which met the criteria for probable depression, increasing to 28% by Year 10
some 14% of students reported high psychological distress in Year 7, rising to 24% in Year 10
the proportion reporting moderate-to-severe anxiety grew from 16% in Year 7 to 24% by Year 10.
Which teens were hardest hit?
We looked at how mental health symptoms over time were linked to different social factors, such as gender, cultural background and family affluence. We also looked at school factors, such as how advantaged a student’s school is.
We found clear differences in mental health by gender, affluence, and school advantage. Girls and gender diverse teens had higher symptoms in Year 7 and a steeper rise in symptoms over the four years, when compared to their male peers.
By Year 10, compared to males, females had average symptom scores that were 88% higher for depression, 34% higher for anxiety, and 55% higher for psychological distress (in models that adjusted for other factors).
Again compared to males and in adjusted models, gender diverse teens had symptom scores at Year 10 that were 121% higher for depression, 55% higher for anxiety, and 89% higher for psychological distress.
Teens from the least affluent families had 7% higher depressive symptoms than those from the most affluent families in adjusted models, while teens attending the least advantaged schools had 9% higher anxiety symptoms than teens attending the most advantaged schools.
We then examined how gender and affluence interacted to influence mental health. Girls in the lowest affluence group experienced heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms over and above the effects of affluence or gender alone.
This shows how multiple factors can stack up, creating greater risk of poor mental health for certain young people.
Gender-diverse teens were more likely to have poor mental health in our study. SeventyFour/Shutterstock
While we were able to explore a wide range of factors, a limitation of our study was that we could not examine all social factors that may impact mental health. For example, we couldn’t ascertain the potential differences experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander teens or those living in remote and very remote areas.
How does this data compare to other studies?
Recent Australian data from similar-aged adolescents is scarce. However, the 2015 Young Minds Matter study found 14.4% of 12- to 17-year-olds experienced a mental disorder in the prior 12 months.
The higher rates of mental health challenges we observed in our study are likely consistent with recent evidence suggesting “cohort effects” – where each generation has worse mental health than the one before it. Research is still investigating the reasons behind these trends, with avenues of inquiry spanning everything from social media to climate change. But it appears no single factor is to blame.
The COVID pandemic has also played a role, with young people seeming to be hit particularly hard by mental health impacts of the pandemic.
Notably, the gender differences between girls and boys are supported by data from global studies, showing this is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon.
What can we do about the gender divide in mental health?
With a mental health-care system stretched beyond capacity, it’s crucial we prevent and address mental health problems early. While this requires a multilayered approach, aiming to reduce these gender inequities in mental health is an important place to start.
While outside the scope of this study, a growing field of research is interrogating why there are gender differences in mental health. Factors identified include:
These areas indicate avenues for potential solutions, but addressing these factors requires wraparound investment.
Promisingly, many of these factors are mentioned in the National Women’s Health Strategy. With women’s health a central platform for the Albanese government’s election campaign, hopefully we will see more investment in research and policy to address these issues.
Importantly, our study found gender inequities in mental health were even more stark for gender diverse teens, so focus should not solely be on girls and women.
We must design solutions with young people
Adolescent mental health isn’t something we can tackle with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need strategies that are meaningfully co-designed with young people themselves. Initiatives can then be tailored to meet their unique needs and reflect their diverse experiences.
When we work directly with priority groups, such as girls, gender diverse teens and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, we can offer safe, culturally appropriate and affirming solutions. This helps teens feel seen, heard and supported – all key ingredients for better mental health.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.
Scarlett Smout receives funding from the BHP Foundation and provides academic support for Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank.
Katrina Champion receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and via University of Sydney Horizon Fellowship.
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 degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government’s increasing strategic entanglement with the United States – specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump.
It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against “positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China”.
Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US.
After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go “from strength to strength” during Trump’s second presidency.
To date, nothing seems to shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a “reliable” partner.
While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a “trade war”, the prime minister depicted the story as a “real media beat-up”. Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump’s America had “common strategic interests”.
Closer US ties
We can trace the National-led government’s closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024.
New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire.
The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in “pillar two” of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has “the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings”.
In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including:
Operation Olympic Defender for war fighting in space, a significant development for a relatively new space operator such as New Zealand
Project Overmatch, which seeks to revolutionise naval warfare through allied cooperation in advanced digital technology
and a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement with US ally the Philippines, which is locked in a dispute with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.
To be sure, New Zealand governments and US administrations have long had overlapping concerns about China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact.
Ardern’s successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China’s threat.
And the current government has condemned China’s comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands – a self-governing entity within the New Zealand’s realm – and expressed consternation about China’s recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea.
But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand’s. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America’s status as the dominant global power.
But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China’s threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past.
Not in NZ interests
Trump’s proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration’s disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand’s national interests.
Similarly, his sidelining of the UN’s humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand’s stated foreign policy positions.
And right now, Trump’s refusal to condemn Israel’s pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration’s indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to.
It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump’s apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia’s most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests.
A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington’s longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order.
In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon’s hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights.
Robert G. Patman 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.
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 track maintenance team, on the middle level. We were mostly cleaning up the waterways. I was with my son Wilbur who’s 11, and he was there with his friend Frankie, who’s 12, and they were also knee deep in digging out all of the weeds.
It was my first time at Matauri Bay. One of the things it made me really think about, which is not only specific to the oceans campaign I work on, was really feeling for the first time what being part of Greenpeace as a community or a movement or family means and feels like.
David Robie’s tent talk about the Rainbow Warrior on the Rongelap voyage in May 1985 . . . the two men on the sheet screen are the late Senator Jetin Anjain (left) and Greenpeace campaigner Steve Sawyer who were key to the success of the relocation. Image: Greenpeace Aotearoa
Looking back 40 years David Robie gave us a really great presentation of what it was like on board the Rainbow Warrior as a freelance journalist on that final voyage in 1985. David is a journalist and was actually one of my journalism lecturers when I went to journalism school at AUT, like 15 plus years ago!
At that time on the Rainbow Warrior he was reporting on the journey to Rongelap and helping the people move from their island home.
When you’re hearing people like David talking about being on that last voyage and sharing those memories — then thinking about how all of us here now are continuing the work — and that in the future, there will be people who join and keep campaigning for oceans and for all the other issues that we work on — I had this really tangible feeling of how it all fits together.
The work goes behind us and before us – I think I described it in my reflection on the day, ‘looking back and moving forward’. And that it’s bigger than me right now or bigger than all of us right now.
Russel [Norman, executive director] said it in a way too, about feeling the challenge from the past when you’re looking at those photos of the people who were on that last voyage, and the really brave work that they did. You see them looking out at you and it does feel motivational, but also like a challenge to keep being courageous.
Dr David Robie’s talk about the Rainbow Warrior and Rongelap. Video: Greenpeace
We can get caught up in the everyday of trying to do something. And this was one of those moments where you get more of a bird’s eye view, and that felt significant.
Connecting with the people in the photos I think one of the most moving things was hearing David talk about the people in the photographs, making them come alive with the stories of the people and what they were like, including when he talked about his favourite photo that he thought best represented Fernando sitting on a boat with his camera in mid-conversation.
David has written in his book about being on the Rainbow Warrior (Eyes of Fire), putting it in the political context of the time.
He talked to us about the difficulties and all the challenges back 40 years ago, getting content to the media from a boat, and sending radio reports — how important it was to get the story out there.
The Greenpeace photographer — that was Fernando — would have to develop the photos himself on board, then transmit them to media outlets. He was one of the people who was key in getting the story of that final voyage to the media and to the wider public.
I found it interesting also talking with David about the different struggles for journalism training these days — there’s less outlets now to train as a journalist in New Zealand.
That’s because there’s less jobs and there’s so much pressure on the media at the moment. Lots of outlets closing down, people losing their jobs and then the impact of that in terms of being able to get stories out.
Emma Page is oceans communications lead for Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished with permission.
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 track maintenance team, on the middle level. We were mostly cleaning up the waterways. I was with my son Wilbur who’s 11, and he was there with his friend Frankie, who’s 12, and they were also knee deep in digging out all of the weeds.
It was my first time at Matauri Bay. One of the things it made me really think about, which is not only specific to the oceans campaign I work on, was really feeling for the first time what being part of Greenpeace as a community or a movement or family means and feels like.
David Robie’s tent talk about the Rainbow Warrior on the Rongelap voyage in May 1985 . . . the two men on the sheet screen are the late Senator Jetin Anjain (left) and Greenpeace campaigner Steve Sawyer who were key to the success of the relocation. Image: Greenpeace Aotearoa
Looking back 40 years David Robie gave us a really great presentation of what it was like on board the Rainbow Warrior as a freelance journalist on that final voyage in 1985. David is a journalist and was actually one of my journalism lecturers when I went to journalism school at AUT, like 15 plus years ago!
At that time on the Rainbow Warrior he was reporting on the journey to Rongelap and helping the people move from their island home.
When you’re hearing people like David talking about being on that last voyage and sharing those memories — then thinking about how all of us here now are continuing the work — and that in the future, there will be people who join and keep campaigning for oceans and for all the other issues that we work on — I had this really tangible feeling of how it all fits together.
The work goes behind us and before us – I think I described it in my reflection on the day, ‘looking back and moving forward’. And that it’s bigger than me right now or bigger than all of us right now.
Russel [Norman, executive director] said it in a way too, about feeling the challenge from the past when you’re looking at those photos of the people who were on that last voyage, and the really brave work that they did. You see them looking out at you and it does feel motivational, but also like a challenge to keep being courageous.
Dr David Robie’s talk about the Rainbow Warrior and Rongelap. Video: Greenpeace
We can get caught up in the everyday of trying to do something. And this was one of those moments where you get more of a bird’s eye view, and that felt significant.
Connecting with the people in the photos I think one of the most moving things was hearing David talk about the people in the photographs, making them come alive with the stories of the people and what they were like, including when he talked about his favourite photo that he thought best represented Fernando sitting on a boat with his camera in mid-conversation.
David has written in his book about being on the Rainbow Warrior (Eyes of Fire), putting it in the political context of the time.
He talked to us about the difficulties and all the challenges back 40 years ago, getting content to the media from a boat, and sending radio reports — how important it was to get the story out there.
The Greenpeace photographer — that was Fernando — would have to develop the photos himself on board, then transmit them to media outlets. He was one of the people who was key in getting the story of that final voyage to the media and to the wider public.
I found it interesting also talking with David about the different struggles for journalism training these days — there’s less outlets now to train as a journalist in New Zealand.
That’s because there’s less jobs and there’s so much pressure on the media at the moment. Lots of outlets closing down, people losing their jobs and then the impact of that in terms of being able to get stories out.
Emma Page is oceans communications lead for Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished with permission.
Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they have carried out 550 drone operations.
In response, Iran has issued a warning to evacuate the central offices of Israeli television channels 12 and 14.
An Israeli attack on a Red Crescent ambulance in Tehran resulted in the deaths of two relief workers.
Israel’s Finance Minister Belazel Smotrich, who is accused of being a war criminal and the target of sanctions by five countries including New Zealand, claims they have hit 800 targets in Iran, with aircraft flying freely in the nation’s airspace.
In the West Bank, the tension continues, with business continuing at a subdued level, everyone waiting to see how the situation will unfold.
Israel’s illegal siege continues, cutting off cities and villages from one another, while blocking ambulances and urgent medical access in several locations today.
Israeli and Iranian strikes are expected to continue, and potentially escalate, over the coming days.
Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues.
Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
Iranian missiles raining down on Tel Aviv as seen from the occupied West Bank. Image: CM screenshot APR
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, particularly when the scheduled get-together was late in the piece, rather than soon after the president’s arrival in Canada for the G7.
Nevertheless, the result is something of a debacle for Albanese.
The prime minister needs to meet the president. Pressing issues – tariffs, AUKUS and defence – require discussion at leadership level. Quite apart from having the two leaders, who’ve never met, establishing some personal relationship.
It would have been especially desirable for the prime minister to convey, at the highest level, Australia’s views on the importance of and progress on AUKUS, as the month-long US inquiry into the agreement begins. This inquiry, announced last week, is examining whether the pact serves the US’ interests.
It’s also difficult to see Australia being able to extract concessions on the US tariffs without a discussion between the leaders. Possibly something can be done in phone calls between the two. But they seem as rare as hen’s teeth.
The Albanese government’s spin is, no matter, there will be a chance for a meeting when Albanese goes to the US in September to address the United Nations leaders’ week. He can make a side trip to Washington.
Perhaps. But let’s wait to see the invitation to Washington. Many leaders are in the US at that time, wanting to get to the capital.
Anyway, it’s become increasingly clear Albanese is not keen on facing the now-risky Oval Office ritual. Trump may be in a bad mood. The US journalists present could be feral.
If Albanese hopes the meeting would be in New York, that would be at the whim of Trump’s schedule.
Looking back, whatever the counterarguments (that included the complication of an election campaign), the prime minister should have tried very hard to get to Trump earlier, including braving the Oval Office.
This is not because Australia should kowtow to the Americans, but because any Australian prime minister should engage, as soon as possible, with a new US administration, especially when the president is as volatile as this one.
When things slip, as they have now, it all becomes trickier to navigate.
Those with good memories might recall this is not the first time Albanese has found himself victim of a presidential no-show. In 2023, then president Joe Biden was supposed to come to Australia for the Quad, and address the federal parliament.
Because of a deadlock in negotiations over the US budget, the president didn’t make it. (Later he issued Albanese an invitation for an official visit to Washington, seen as compensation. Not a precedent Albanese should rely on.) The Biden no-show was a big inconvenience but no more, given the very positive relations between the Albanese government and that US administration.
Some in Labor would think about the Trump issue in domestic political terms – that given Australians don’t like Trump, it’s not that important whether there is a meeting. But that sort of approach is not in Australia’s national interests.
An exchange at the joint news conference Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who has a deal on tariffs) gave in Canada is instructive.
Question: On the AUKUS submarine agreement, is that still proceeding?
Keir Starmer: Yep, we’re proceeding with that. It’s a really important deal to both of us. I think the President is doing a review. We did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me.
Donald Trump: We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time. He’s slightly more liberal than I am, to put it mildly.
Starmer: I stand slightly on the left.
Trump: But for some reason, we get along.
Starmer: We make it work.
Somehow, Albanese needs to find a way to “make it work”.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Anthony Albanese’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, particularly when the scheduled get-together was late in the piece, rather than soon after the president’s arrival in Canada for the G7.
Nevertheless, the result is something of a debacle for Albanese.
The prime minister needs to meet the president. Pressing issues – tariffs, AUKUS and defence – require discussion at leadership level. Quite apart from having the two leaders, who’ve never met, establishing some personal relationship.
It would have been especially desirable for the prime minister to convey, at the highest level, Australia’s views on the importance of and progress on AUKUS, as the month-long US inquiry into the agreement begins. This inquiry, announced last week, is examining whether the pact serves the US’ interests.
It’s also difficult to see Australia being able to extract concessions on the US tariffs without a discussion between the leaders. Possibly something can be done in phone calls between the two. But they seem as rare as hen’s teeth.
The Albanese government’s spin is, no matter, there will be a chance for a meeting when Albanese goes to the US in September to address the United Nations leaders’ week. He can make a side trip to Washington.
Perhaps. But let’s wait to see the invitation to Washington. Many leaders are in the US at that time, wanting to get to the capital.
Anyway, it’s become increasingly clear Albanese is not keen on facing the now-risky Oval Office ritual. Trump may be in a bad mood. The US journalists present could be feral.
If Albanese hopes the meeting would be in New York, that would be at the whim of Trump’s schedule.
Looking back, whatever the counterarguments (that included the complication of an election campaign), the prime minister should have tried very hard to get to Trump earlier, including braving the Oval Office.
This is not because Australia should kowtow to the Americans, but because any Australian prime minister should engage, as soon as possible, with a new US administration, especially when the president is as volatile as this one.
When things slip, as they have now, it all becomes trickier to navigate.
Those with good memories might recall this is not the first time Albanese has found himself victim of a presidential no-show. In 2023, then president Joe Biden was supposed to come to Australia for the Quad, and address the federal parliament.
Because of a deadlock in negotiations over the US budget, the president didn’t make it. (Later he issued Albanese an invitation for an official visit to Washington, seen as compensation. Not a precedent Albanese should rely on.) The Biden no-show was a big inconvenience but no more, given the very positive relations between the Albanese government and that US administration.
Some in Labor would think about the Trump issue in domestic political terms – that given Australians don’t like Trump, it’s not that important whether there is a meeting. But that sort of approach is not in Australia’s national interests.
An exchange at the joint news conference Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who has a deal on tariffs) gave in Canada is instructive.
Question: On the AUKUS submarine agreement, is that still proceeding?
Keir Starmer: Yep, we’re proceeding with that. It’s a really important deal to both of us. I think the President is doing a review. We did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me.
Donald Trump: We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time. He’s slightly more liberal than I am, to put it mildly.
Starmer: I stand slightly on the left.
Trump: But for some reason, we get along.
Starmer: We make it work.
Somehow, Albanese needs to find a way to “make it work”.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The 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 economic, security, and diplomatic priorities with PNG, taking full advantage of its position as the biggest, most strategically placed island player in the Pacific.
An examination of the key outcomes reveals a partnership of mutual benefit, reflecting both PNG’s strategic diversification and France’s own long-term ambitions as a Pacific power.
A primary driver is the shared economic rationale. From Port Moresby’s perspective, the partnership offers a clear path to economic diversification and resilience.
But many in PNG have been watching with keen interest and asking: how badly does PNG want this?
While Prime Minister James Marape offered France a Special Economic Zone in Port Moresby (SEZ) for French businesses, he also named the lookout at Port Moresby’s Variarata National Park after President Emmanuel Macron drawing the ire of many in the country.
The proposal to establish a SEZ specifically for French industries is a notable attempt to attract capital from beyond PNG’s traditional partners.
Strategically coupled This is strategically coupled with securing the future of the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project.
Macron’s personal undertaking to work with TotalEnergies to keep the project on schedule provides crucial stability for one of PNG’s most significant economic ventures.
For France, these arrangements secure a major energy investment for its national corporate champion and establish a stronger economic foothold in a strategically vital region between Asia and the Pacific.
In the area of security, the relationship addresses tangible needs for both nations.
PNG is faced with the immense challenge of monitoring a 2.4 million sq km Exclusive Economic Zone, making it vulnerable to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The finalisation of a Shiprider Agreement with France provides a practical force-multiplier, leveraging French naval assets to enhance PNG’s maritime surveillance capabilities. This move, along with planned defence talks on air and maritime cooperation, allows PNG to diversify its security architecture.
For France, a resident power with Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia, participating in regional security operations reinforces its role and commitment to stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Elevating diplomatic influence The partnership is also a vehicle for elevating diplomatic influence.
Port Moresby has noted the significance of engaging with a partner that holds permanent membership on the UN Security Council and seats at the G7 and G20.
This alignment provides PNG with a powerful channel to global decision-making forums. The reciprocal move to establish a PNG embassy in Paris further cements the relationship on a mature footing.
The diplomatic synergy is perhaps best illustrated by France’s full endorsement of PNG’s bid to host a future UN Ocean Conference. This support provides PNG with a major opportunity to lead on the world stage, while allowing France to demonstrate its credentials as a key partner to the Pacific Islands.
This deepening PNG-France partnership does not exist in a vacuum.
The West’s view of China’s rapid emergence as a dominant economic and military force in the region has reshaped the strategic landscape, prompting traditional powers to re-engage with renewed urgency.
increased diplomatic footprint The United States has responded by significantly increasing its diplomatic and security footprint, a move marked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Port Moresby to sign the Defence Cooperation Agreement.
Similarly, Australia, PNG’s traditional security partner, is working to reinforce its long-standing influence through initiatives like the multi-million-dollar deal to establish a PNG team in its National Rugby League (NRL), a soft-power exercise reportedly linked to security outcomes.
This competitive environment has, in turn, created greater agency for Pacific nations, allowing them to diversify their partnerships beyond old allies and providing a fertile ground for European powers like France to assert their own strategic interests.
A strong foundation for the relationship is a shared public stance on environmental stewardship. The agreement on the need for rigorous scientific studies before any deep-sea mining occurs aligns PNG’s national policy with a position of environmental caution.
This common ground extends to broader climate action, where France’s commitment to conservation in the Pacific resonates with PNG’s status as a frontline nation vulnerable to climate change.
This alignment on values provides a durable and politically important basis for cooperation, allowing both nations to jointly advocate for climate justice and ocean protection.
For the Papua New Guinea economy, this deepening partnership with France is critically important as it provides high-level stability for the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project and creates a direct pathway for new investment through a proposed SEZ for French businesses.
Vital economic resource Furthermore, by moving to finalise a Shiprider Agreement to combat illegal fishing, the government is actively protecting a vital economic resource.
For Marape’s credibility in local politics, these outcomes are tangible successes he can present to the nation as he battles a massive credibility dip in recent years.
Securing a personal undertaking from the leader of a G7 nation, gaining support for PNG to host a future UN Ocean Conference, and enhancing national security demonstrates effective leadership on the world stage.
This allows him to build a narrative of a competent statesman who, through “warm, personal relationships”, can deliver on promises of economic opportunity and national security while strengthening his political standing at home.
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 economic, security, and diplomatic priorities with PNG, taking full advantage of its position as the biggest, most strategically placed island player in the Pacific.
An examination of the key outcomes reveals a partnership of mutual benefit, reflecting both PNG’s strategic diversification and France’s own long-term ambitions as a Pacific power.
A primary driver is the shared economic rationale. From Port Moresby’s perspective, the partnership offers a clear path to economic diversification and resilience.
But many in PNG have been watching with keen interest and asking: how badly does PNG want this?
While Prime Minister James Marape offered France a Special Economic Zone in Port Moresby (SEZ) for French businesses, he also named the lookout at Port Moresby’s Variarata National Park after President Emmanuel Macron drawing the ire of many in the country.
The proposal to establish a SEZ specifically for French industries is a notable attempt to attract capital from beyond PNG’s traditional partners.
Strategically coupled This is strategically coupled with securing the future of the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project.
Macron’s personal undertaking to work with TotalEnergies to keep the project on schedule provides crucial stability for one of PNG’s most significant economic ventures.
For France, these arrangements secure a major energy investment for its national corporate champion and establish a stronger economic foothold in a strategically vital region between Asia and the Pacific.
In the area of security, the relationship addresses tangible needs for both nations.
PNG is faced with the immense challenge of monitoring a 2.4 million sq km Exclusive Economic Zone, making it vulnerable to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The finalisation of a Shiprider Agreement with France provides a practical force-multiplier, leveraging French naval assets to enhance PNG’s maritime surveillance capabilities. This move, along with planned defence talks on air and maritime cooperation, allows PNG to diversify its security architecture.
For France, a resident power with Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia, participating in regional security operations reinforces its role and commitment to stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Elevating diplomatic influence The partnership is also a vehicle for elevating diplomatic influence.
Port Moresby has noted the significance of engaging with a partner that holds permanent membership on the UN Security Council and seats at the G7 and G20.
This alignment provides PNG with a powerful channel to global decision-making forums. The reciprocal move to establish a PNG embassy in Paris further cements the relationship on a mature footing.
The diplomatic synergy is perhaps best illustrated by France’s full endorsement of PNG’s bid to host a future UN Ocean Conference. This support provides PNG with a major opportunity to lead on the world stage, while allowing France to demonstrate its credentials as a key partner to the Pacific Islands.
This deepening PNG-France partnership does not exist in a vacuum.
The West’s view of China’s rapid emergence as a dominant economic and military force in the region has reshaped the strategic landscape, prompting traditional powers to re-engage with renewed urgency.
increased diplomatic footprint The United States has responded by significantly increasing its diplomatic and security footprint, a move marked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Port Moresby to sign the Defence Cooperation Agreement.
Similarly, Australia, PNG’s traditional security partner, is working to reinforce its long-standing influence through initiatives like the multi-million-dollar deal to establish a PNG team in its National Rugby League (NRL), a soft-power exercise reportedly linked to security outcomes.
This competitive environment has, in turn, created greater agency for Pacific nations, allowing them to diversify their partnerships beyond old allies and providing a fertile ground for European powers like France to assert their own strategic interests.
A strong foundation for the relationship is a shared public stance on environmental stewardship. The agreement on the need for rigorous scientific studies before any deep-sea mining occurs aligns PNG’s national policy with a position of environmental caution.
This common ground extends to broader climate action, where France’s commitment to conservation in the Pacific resonates with PNG’s status as a frontline nation vulnerable to climate change.
This alignment on values provides a durable and politically important basis for cooperation, allowing both nations to jointly advocate for climate justice and ocean protection.
For the Papua New Guinea economy, this deepening partnership with France is critically important as it provides high-level stability for the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project and creates a direct pathway for new investment through a proposed SEZ for French businesses.
Vital economic resource Furthermore, by moving to finalise a Shiprider Agreement to combat illegal fishing, the government is actively protecting a vital economic resource.
For Marape’s credibility in local politics, these outcomes are tangible successes he can present to the nation as he battles a massive credibility dip in recent years.
Securing a personal undertaking from the leader of a G7 nation, gaining support for PNG to host a future UN Ocean Conference, and enhancing national security demonstrates effective leadership on the world stage.
This allows him to build a narrative of a competent statesman who, through “warm, personal relationships”, can deliver on promises of economic opportunity and national security while strengthening his political standing at home.
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 24 hours. Currently there is a seven-day window.
On top of this, vapes will be banned from all early childhood services and there will be “stronger protections” around the photographing and filming of children. Services will be need to have clear policies on taking photos and videos of children, parent consent, CCTV use and using service-issued devices.
Next week, Australia’s education ministers will meet to discuss what else can be done to improve safety in childcare services. What do they need to consider?
What has happened so far?
This week’s changes stem from a 2023 review by the national early childhood quality authority, which highlighted serious concerns about childcare safety.
This found increasing reports of critical incidents in services relating to inappropriate discipline, inadequate supervision and harmful sexual behaviours.
Education Minister Jason Clare explained he set up the review, prompted by concerns for children’s safety. This included allegations of multiple cases of abuse by a former childcare worker.
But stories of mistreatment and neglect in childcare services have continued – with the ABC reporting cases of shocking abuse in some childcare centres this year.
Too many incidents
The national childcare quality authority reports there has been a slow but steady increase in the rate of confirmed breaches and reporting of serious incidents in the eight years to 2023-24.
For example, the rate of reported serious incidents in 2023-24 was 148 per 100 approved services. This is higher than the rate of 139 in 2022-23 and 124 in 2021-22.
Concerningly, current reporting levels may be an under-representation due to inadequate understanding of child safety among educators and confusion about when and how to report child safety incidents.
This mirrors Australian research, which indicates a lack of time, understanding and support are barriers for medical staff reporting child abuse.
Why is progress so slow?
There is a chance the latest announcement may inadvertently cause families concern. Parents and carers might reasonably wonder why we currently have a seven-day window to report child abuse and how vapes were ever allowed in early education services to start with.
Families may also wonder why stronger protections around filming their kids have not already been introduced – given early childhood services have been photographing children for years. The situation is further confused by the fact that some service providers may have developed and implemented their own policies.
There is a long history of slow and reactive policy making and regulation in early childhood – as noted by a review published by the Australian Council for Educational Research as far back as 2006.
The sector is also subject to complex and cumbersome structural frameworks. Services need to navigate different state and territory requirements as well as national regulations. There are also a raft of extra guidelines and codes, for example, Safe Sleep Practices by Red Nose Australia.
What is needed now?
Next week, federal and state education ministers will meet and discuss childcare safety once again. There are two important things they should keep in mind.
1. We are still missing important data.
We need a better evidence base on the exact nature and frequency of child safety incidents in childcare services. We need robust data so we can track longitudinal trends and assess the ongoing impact of new policies.
At the moment this crucial information is obscured by inconsistent data records. While this is likely due to the complex interplay of federal and state governance, this is one of many issues in the sector that has long been documented.
2. Early childhood educators are already overworked
My 2024 research with colleagues shows many early childhood educators already know what safe and quality education and care looks like. But they are frustrated their ability to spend quality time with children is hampered by administrative tasks. This frustration is a key contributor to burnout, which is already rife within the sector.
So governments should ensure important safety practices do not come with excessive, burdensome and confusing red tape.
What about families?
For families who are worried about the quality of care their children are receiving – it may help to know the vast majority of services (91%) met or exceeded the national standards as of February 2025.
If you have specific concerns you can contact the regulatory authority in your state.
Erin Harper 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 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 goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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 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 goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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.
In an era of the atomisation of viewing practices through streaming, increasingly short, self-produced videos for TikTok and YouTube, and the reduction of all audiovisual material to “content” for various “platforms”, there is something refreshing about a bunch of strangers assembling in a dark room to collectively watch a giant screen with massive sound.
In other words, going to the movies.
And there’s no better place to see films limited in mainstream release than at film festivals. The standard of the films screening at this year’s Sydney Film Festival was exceptional, and it is difficult to select a top five out of the 40 or so I managed to see. But here goes!
Sirât
Produced by Pedro Almodovar, writer-director Oliver Laxe’s Sirât, which recently won the Jury Prize at Cannes, follows middle-aged Luis (Sergi López) as he travels with his son Esteban (Bruno Núñez Arjona) and their dog Pipa looking for his estranged daughter in the desert rave scene. They team up with a group of ravers and set off across Southern Morocco towards the next party.
Early on, there are some hints that things are awry on a broader scale – the military break up the opening doof, and we hear, at one point, World War III has broken out.
And as the film unfolds, things take a turn for the worse, with a litany of tragedies – increasingly absurd – afflicting the members of the group. The vaguely futuristic world of the opening crystallises into something much more terrifying than the kind of shrill cinematic post-apocalypticism we’ve become used to through films like Fury Road.
What begins as a kind of paean to raving – replete with bass-thumping speakers (cranked in theatres to eardrum pounding loudness), a “cool” crew of trippers, and an emphasis on the free lives of the ravers (played by real-life party-goers) – rapidly descends into a wild existential nightmare. And the idea that life is a kind of free consumerist party for westerners is viciously dismembered in the second half: we are all refugees in this era.
Sirât is a masterpiece. Its stunning 16mm film images (courtesy of cinematographer Mauro Herve) are complemented by exceptional sound design by Laia Casanova, a majesty of image and sound demanding to be experienced in a cinema.
Somebody
Written and directed by Lee Jung-chan and Kim Yeo-jung, the South Korean film Somebody is a puzzling, intense psycho drama about precociously evil child So-hyun (Gi So-yoo) and the pressures this places on her single mother Yeong-eun (Kwak Sun-young).
An unsettling horror thriller, the film also plays like a study of the evil child archetype. It works through the genre’s cliches, unpicking them while eschewing the usual evil-kid scares in favour of looking at the complex interplay between and ambiguity around the image of child as brat/evil and mother as caring/enabler.
In the first half, the point of view oscillates between an image of the child as evil and the child as scared. In the second half, the evil child has grown up, and we follow her towards the film’s brutal (and unexpected) ending.
And this is where Somebody excels. It taps into the fear of parents that their children are alien parasites – who is this stranger now living off me? – but also the difficulties for children in feeling isolated and scared.
Somebody is a deeply sad and troubling film, buoyed by excellent performances from adults and children alike. In real life, the idea that a kid would be born evil is preposterous, but it’s a movieland cliché that works. Somebody addresses this idea with a genuinely impressive vision.
Harvest
Athina Rachel Tsangari’s Harvest is a melancholic, elegiac film set in a rural community in Scotland in the Middle Ages. When the economic harmony of the village is disrupted by the advent of a new noble, three wandering strangers are mercilessly scapegoated, despite the efforts of villager Walter Thirsk (Caleb Landry Jones, in a beautifully understated performance) to protect them.
Despite the turmoil it depicts, the film unfolds as gently as the familiar rhythms of the seasons.
Cinematographer Sean Price Williams’ 16mm images are uncannily beautiful, supported by an astonishing score and sound design from Nicolas Becker.
This fable about the ravages of modernity (recalling Vincent Ward’s The Navigator) – of the violence of calendar time as it overcomes the time of the harvest – is exceptional in every respect.
Not much happens. It’s a slow-moving, brooding film, and it would not be nearly as compelling seen on a small screen. But for those of us willing to make a trip to the movies, Harvest is immensely satisfying.
Redux Redux
Part of the eternally rousing Freak Me Out strand of the program from film critic Richard Kuipers, Kevin and Matthew McManus’ Redux Redux is the kind of high concept film that could easily depend too much on its ingenious conceit (a woman travels throughout the multiverse repeatedly avenging the murder of her daughter) and forget about the stuff that actually makes films work (coherent, striking visual design, immersive sound and compelling performances).
But Redux Redux gets everything right, maintaining its iron grip on the viewer from the opening title card to the closing credits. Michaela McManus – sister of the writer-directors – is brilliant as the grieving, vengeful mother, playing the part with a staid intensity that never tips into hysteria or melodrama.
There are some funny moments – the amusingly lowbrow design of the multiverse machine, for example. But the film never feels like it plays too hard for laughs. Paul Koch’s synth music and sound design are richly atmospheric without coming off as trite, and perfectly support the crisp, economical cinematography of Alan Gwizdowski.
The most impressive thing about the film is the effortlessness with which the story feels like it develops throughout – even though the plot, on the surface, involves the same thing being repeated ad nauseam.
Unlike, for example, in the case of the multiverse-themed Everything Everywhere All at Once, Redux Redux never comes across as self-indulgent, clever for its own sake. It never feels like anything other than a compulsively watchable – and immensely pleasurable – revenge thriller.
Alpha
Writer-director Jan-Willem van Ewijk’s Alpha begins as a lightly comedic intergenerational social satire.
Thirty-something Rein (Reinout Scholten van Aschat), a Dutch snowboarder in the Swiss alps, clashes with his movie-star father, Gijs (Gijs Scholten van Aschar), when Gijs visits him. Gijs flirts with Rein’s girlfriend, asks inappropriate questions about race, and parties with his son’s friends, all the time escalating the stakes, becoming increasingly overbearing and competitive.
It’s funny and familiar fare, treading similar terrain to a Ruben Östland film, and it’s well-done. Pairing a real life father and son is a casting act of genius, adding both pathos and authenticity to their competition.
Similar to Sirât, Alpha takes a sudden turn at the mid-way point. Father and son are trapped in an avalanche. It becomes a race against time as son tries to rescue father in a gruelling battle for survival.
Its brutal second half completely detonates the entire scaffold of our pleasure from the first half. Testament to the craft of van Ewijk (and the talent of the stars), this radical change in tone never feels incoherent or contrived.
By the end of Alpha, the petty dick-swinging of father and son from the first half – and the energetic (and well-shot) skiing footage – becomes nothing before the austere, cold majesty of the mountains looming over and entrapping them.
Alpha is a masterclass in audience manipulation. A truly devastating experience for the viewer.
Other notable films – and one dud!
There were too many excellent films to note them all. Some include master auteur Christian Petzold’s Mirrors No. 3, a film – typical of Petzold – of people haunted by ghosts of lives lost and faded desires, an understated film which – again, customary for Petzold’s work – has an enigmatic air one can’t quite put one’s finger on.
Kleber Mendonça Filho’s The Secret Agent was another standout: a fun, rollicking romp for cinephiles about political machinations in Brazil in the 1970s.
Richard Linklater’s Blue Moon, a biopic of American songwriter Lorenz Hart, had a charmingly goofy affect, as did Vie Privée, a breezy French thriller starring Jodie Foster as a psychoanalyst caught up in a mystery.
Olmo, which could easily have made the top five, is a charming coming of age odyssey about a Mexican-American 14-year-old going to a party with his crush. The Love That Remains is a stunningly shot, surreal comedy about the trials and tribulations of an Icelandic family.
As per usual, some exceptional documentaries screened. Joh: The Last King of Queensland made by Kriv Stenders (better known for narrative works like Red Dog), is a formally compelling study of the reign of Australia’s longest serving premier.
The Raftsmen is an uplifting crowd-pleaser about the expedition from Ecuador to Australia that captivated the public’s attention in 1973. The film is built around an exceptional archive of contemporaneous 16mm footage shot by the rafters.
Lowland Kids, produced by Darren Aronofsky, is a carefully observed documentary about a community in Louisiana forced to relocate because of climate change. This tender film counterpoints the grim reality of global warming with the individual disappointments of the characters’ personal lives.
The only truly execrable film I saw was Michel Franco’s Dreams, a hokey, profoundly dumb film masquerading as something cutting edge (wow – there’s sex, and the camera doesn’t move much), cashing in on topical problems in the United States. Worst of all – and despite ballet sequences, which are always good to watch – it’s a very ugly film.
Given the mediocre quality of much contemporary Hollywood cinema, one dud out of 40 isn’t too bad!
Ari Mattes 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 Middle East is a region of intense beauty and ancient kingdoms. It has also repeatedly endured periods of geopolitical instability over many centuries.
Today, geopolitical, socio-political and religious tensions persist. The world is currently watching as longstanding regional tensions come to a head in the shocking and escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
The global airline industry takes a special interest in how such tensions play out. This airspace is a crucial corridor linking Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Middle East is now home to several of the world’s largest international airlines: Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways. These airlines’ home bases – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi, respectively – have become pivotal hubs in international aviation.
Keeping passengers safe will be all airlines’ highest priority. What could an escalating conflict mean for both the airlines and the travelling public?
Safety first
History shows that the civil airline industry and military conflict do not mix. On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes, a US navy warship, fired two surface-to-air missiles and shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an international passenger service over the Persian Gulf.
More recently, on July 17 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine as the battle between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists continued.
Understandably, global airlines are very risk-averse when it comes to military conflict. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires airlines to implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS).
One of the main concerns – known as “pillars” – of the SMS is “safety risk management”. This includes the processes to identify hazards, assess risks and implement risk mitigation strategies.
The risk-management departments of airlines transiting the Middle East region will have been working hard on these strategies.
Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization has strict requirements and protocols to keep passengers safe. meunierd/Shutterstock
Route recalculation
The most immediate and obvious evidence of such strategies being put in place are changes to aircraft routing, either by cancelling or suspending flights or making changes to the flight plans. This is to ensure aircraft avoid the airspace where military conflicts are flaring.
At the time of writing, a quick look at flight tracking website Flightradar24 shows global aircraft traffic avoiding the airspace of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. The airspace over Ukraine is also devoid of air traffic.
Rerouting, however, creates its own challenges. Condensing the path of the traffic into smaller, more congested areas can push aircraft into and over areas that are not necessarily equipped to deal with such a large increase in traffic.
Having more aircraft in a smaller amount of available safe airspace creates challenges for air traffic control services and the pilots operating the aircraft.
More time and fuel
Avoiding areas of conflict is one of the most visible forms of airline risk management. This may add time to the length of a planned flight, leading to higher fuel consumption and other logistical challenges. This will add to the airlines’ operating costs.
There will be no impact on the cost of tickets already purchased. But if the instability in the region continues, we may see airline ticket prices increase.
It is not just the avoidance of airspace in the region that could place upward pressure on the cost of flying. Airliners run on Jet-A1 fuel, produced from oil.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”, this could see the cost of oil, and in turn Jet-A1, significantly increase. Increasing fuel costs will be passed on the paying passenger. However, some experts believe such a move is unlikely.
A major hub
The major aviation hubs in the Middle East provide increased global connectivity, enabling passengers to travel seamlessly between continents.
Increased regional instability has the potential to disrupt this global connectivity. In the event of a prolonged conflict, airlines operating in and around the region may find they have increased insurance costs. Such costs would eventually find their way passed on to consumers through higher ticket prices.
Across the globe, airlines and governments are issuing travel advisories and warnings. The onus is on the travelling public to stay informed about changes to flight status, and potential delays.
Such warnings and advisories can lead to a drop in passenger confidence, which may then lead to a drop in bookings both into and onwards from the region.
Until the increase in instability in the Middle East, global airline passenger traffic numbers were larger than pre-pandemic figures. Strong growth had been predicted in the coming decades.
Anything that results in falling passenger confidence could negatively impact these figures, leading to slowed growth and affecting airline profitability.
Despite high-profile disasters, aviation remains the safest form of transport. As airlines deal with these challenges they will constantly work to keep flights safe and to win back passenger confidence in this unpredictable situation.
Natasha Heap 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.
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 counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
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 counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
Ever find yourself unable to stop scrolling through your phone, chasing that next funny video or interesting post?
Or maybe you’ve felt a rush of excitement when you achieve a goal, eat a delicious meal, or fill your online shopping cart.
Why do some experiences feel so rewarding, while others leave us feeling flat? Well, dopamine might be responsible for that. Here’s what it does in our brains and bodies.
It’s a chemical messenger
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter – a chemical messenger that facilitates communication between the brain and the central nervous system. It sends messages between different parts of your nervous system, helping your body and brain coordinate everything from your movement to your mood.
Dopamine is most known for its role in short-term pleasure, and the boost we get from things such as eating tasty foods, drinking alcohol, scrolling social media or falling in love.
It even plays a role in kidney function by regulating the levels of salt and water we excrete.
Conversely, low levels of dopamine have been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.
How dopamine motivates us to pursue pleasure
Dopamine is not just active when we do pleasurable things. It’s active beforehand and it drives us to pursue pleasure.
Say I go to a cafe and decide to buy a doughnut. When I bite into the doughnut, it tastes fantastic. Dopamine surges and I experience pleasure.
The next time I walk past the cafe, dopamine is already active. It remembers the doughnut I had last time and how delicious it was. Dopamine drives me to walk back into the cafe, purchase another doughnut and eat it.
From an evolutionary perspective, dopamine was incredibly important and it ensured survival of the species. It motivated behaviours such as hunting and foraging for food. It reinforced the pursuit of finding shelter and safety and keeping away from predators. And it motivated people to seek out mates and to reproduce.
However, modern technology has amplified the effects of dopamine, leading to negative consequences. Activities such as excessive social media use, gambling, consuming alcohol, drug use, sex, pornography and gaming can stimulate dopamine release, creating cycles of addiction and compulsive behaviours.
Our dopamine levels can vary
Our brain is constantly releasing small amounts of dopamine at a “baseline” rate. This is because dopamine is crucial to the functioning of our brain and body, irrespective of pleasure.
Everyone has a different baseline, influenced by genetic factors such as our DRD2 dopamine receptor genes. Some people produce and metabolise dopamine faster than other people. Our baseline levels can also be influenced by sleep, nutrition and stress in our lives.
If I play games on my phone all morning and get a dopamine release from that, then I eat something tasty for morning tea, I may not experience the same level of fulfilment or enjoyment that I would have had I not played those games.
The brain works hard to regulate itself and it won’t allow us to be in a constant state of dopamine “highs”. This means we can build a tolerance to certain exciting activities if we seek them out too much, as the brain wants to avoid being in a state of constant dopamine “highs”.
Healthy ways to get a dopamine boost
Thankfully, there are healthy, non-addictive ways to boost your dopamine levels.
Exercise is one of the most effective methods for boosting dopamine naturally. Physical activities such as walking, running, cycling, or even dancing can trigger the release of dopamine, leading to improved mood and greater motivation.
Research has shown listening to music you enjoy makes your brain release more dopamine, giving you a pleasurable experience.
And of course, spending time with people whose company we enjoy is another great way to activate dopamine.
Incorporating these habits into daily life can support your brain’s natural dopamine production and help you enjoy lasting improvements in motivation, mood and overall health.
Anastasia Hronis is the author of The Dopamine Brain: Your Science-Backed Guide to Balancing Pleasure and Purpose, published by Penguin Books Aus & NZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland
Last week, the Queensland government launched the ambitious Destination 2045 tourism plan, which aims to make the state a global leader in tourism. The plan highlights that one in six jobs in tropical north Queensland are supported by tourism.
However, earlier this year the same government tentatively withdrew support from a campaign to add Cape York to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
If the goal is to position Queensland as a leader in tourism, then linking Cape York’s landscapes to the World Heritage brand would certainly help achieve that.
Consultation is key
In June 2024, Steven Miles, Labor’s then-premier in Queensland, and Tanya Plibersek, the federal environment minister, announced they had placed seven of the cape’s national parks on Australia’s tentative World Heritage list.
In January, however, the newly elected Liberal-National government, under Premier David Crisafulli, ordered a review of the decision. The government cited concerns over a lack of sufficient consultation around the nomination.
If a lack of consultation is the main issue, there is an opportunity for the Crissafulli government to thoughtfully reopen negotiations.
Getting this step right could help conserve and encourage tourism to one of Australia’s most diverse landscapes – in line with the Destination 2045 plan.
How to get onto (and kicked off) UNESCO’s list
Cape York covers some 137,000 square kilometres. According to the 2021 census, it has a population of less than 8,000 people, including 3,678 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Fruit Bat Falls is a waterfall located in the Apudthama National Park (Jardine River National Park) in Cape York. Jason Clark/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Inscription to the World Heritage list doesn’t mean the entire cape would be listed – just specific sites and landscapes within it.
It’s usually the responsibility of a country’s various governments to convince UNESCO, in a nomination bid, a certain place has the necessary “outstanding universal value” and meets at least one of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria.
Sites that are physically altered or damaged after receiving World Heritage status can be de-listed, either by a state party or by UNESCO. This has happened in Oman, Germany, the United Kingdom and Georgia.
We also recently saw the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, with its extraordinary record of rock engravings (petroglyphs), denied World Heritage inscription. This was mainly due to the threat of ongoing damage from industrial emissions from Woodside Energy’s nearby Karratha gas plant.
World Heritage status: a risk or benefit?
A carefully considered World Heritage inscription doesn’t necessarily block industries and tourism from the listed area.
Many of the archaeological sites of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area in New South Wales are located on sheep stations. These stations, established in the late 19th century, have individual property plans that ensure the sites are conserved while remaining viable for agricultural activity.
Another example is the tourism seen at the extraordinary eel trap system of Budj Bim in southwest Victoria. Budj Bim is one of Australia’s most recent additions to the World Heritage list. It is also the first site to be inscribed solely for its cultural value.
The Budj Bim eel traps were engineered some 6,600 years ago, and represent one of the world’s oldest aquaculture systems.
This cultural landscape is now home to a thriving tourism program that attracts thousands of visitors each year. The World Heritage listing ensures there are enough resources for the Gunditjmara Traditional Owners running the site to improve the health of Country through cultural and environmental management.
While Queensland’s current government has cited concerns over planning restrictions, these types of concerns are typically based on perception rather than proven harm. In Queensland, they were also clearly addressed in government memos and communications.
Tasmania’s forestry sector resisted World Heritage expansion (there were four expansions between 1989–2013), yet tourism in the region remains economically valuable.
It’s unlikely the Cape York nominations would threaten the pastoral or mining industries, since most of the nominated sites are already protected as national parks.
What makes a World Heritage site?
The list of Cape York sites submitted for World Heritage consideration has some strong contenders. Quinkan Country is undoubtedly the most significant site on the list, distinguished by its diversity and richness of Aboriginal paintings and engravings.
But the list isn’t exhaustive. There are several other Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Cape York that also deserve to be considered by UNESCO. These include the giant shell mounds around Weipa, Jiigurru (Lizard Island), and the Flinders Island Group with its extraordinary rock art galleries.
Moving forward
World heritage listings in Cape York have great potential to allow Aboriginal people to care for the landscapes and create tourism infrastructure that centres Aboriginal perspectives.
Appointing Aboriginal rangers in the Flinders Island Group could help deliver a unique and sustainable cultural tourism experience, similar to that provided at the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Destination 2045 highlights the importance of developing Aboriginal ranger programs in such landscapes to boost cultural tourism and economic growth.
Inggal Odul (Denham Island part of Flinders Island Group). Source: Olivia Arnold (2023).
The Crisafulli government now has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the Traditional Custodians of the Cape York landscapes that have been put forth. We argue that the World Heritage listing outcome could help the cape’s economic development and support its communities.
Michael Westaway receives funding from then Australian Research Council and has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Kaurarag Archipelago, around Mapoon and Weipa including on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay.
Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Ania previously sat on the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nomination Bids review panel. Ania undertakes research with Aboriginal communities including within the Kaurareg Archipelago.
Denis Rose is on the board of the not-for-profit Country Needs People, which advocates for Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous Rangers Program.
Olivia Arnold has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay, Kaurarag Archipelago and Jiigurru (Lizard Island group).
Rylee Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland
Last week, the Queensland government launched the ambitious Destination 2045 tourism plan, which aims to make the state a global leader in tourism. The plan highlights that one in six jobs in tropical north Queensland are supported by tourism.
However, earlier this year the same government tentatively withdrew support from a campaign to add Cape York to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
If the goal is to position Queensland as a leader in tourism, then linking Cape York’s landscapes to the World Heritage brand would certainly help achieve that.
Consultation is key
In June 2024, Steven Miles, Labor’s then-premier in Queensland, and Tanya Plibersek, the federal environment minister, announced they had placed seven of the cape’s national parks on Australia’s tentative World Heritage list.
In January, however, the newly elected Liberal-National government, under Premier David Crisafulli, ordered a review of the decision. The government cited concerns over a lack of sufficient consultation around the nomination.
If a lack of consultation is the main issue, there is an opportunity for the Crissafulli government to thoughtfully reopen negotiations.
Getting this step right could help conserve and encourage tourism to one of Australia’s most diverse landscapes – in line with the Destination 2045 plan.
How to get onto (and kicked off) UNESCO’s list
Cape York covers some 137,000 square kilometres. According to the 2021 census, it has a population of less than 8,000 people, including 3,678 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Fruit Bat Falls is a waterfall located in the Apudthama National Park (Jardine River National Park) in Cape York. Jason Clark/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Inscription to the World Heritage list doesn’t mean the entire cape would be listed – just specific sites and landscapes within it.
It’s usually the responsibility of a country’s various governments to convince UNESCO, in a nomination bid, a certain place has the necessary “outstanding universal value” and meets at least one of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria.
Sites that are physically altered or damaged after receiving World Heritage status can be de-listed, either by a state party or by UNESCO. This has happened in Oman, Germany, the United Kingdom and Georgia.
We also recently saw the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, with its extraordinary record of rock engravings (petroglyphs), denied World Heritage inscription. This was mainly due to the threat of ongoing damage from industrial emissions from Woodside Energy’s nearby Karratha gas plant.
World Heritage status: a risk or benefit?
A carefully considered World Heritage inscription doesn’t necessarily block industries and tourism from the listed area.
Many of the archaeological sites of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area in New South Wales are located on sheep stations. These stations, established in the late 19th century, have individual property plans that ensure the sites are conserved while remaining viable for agricultural activity.
Another example is the tourism seen at the extraordinary eel trap system of Budj Bim in southwest Victoria. Budj Bim is one of Australia’s most recent additions to the World Heritage list. It is also the first site to be inscribed solely for its cultural value.
The Budj Bim eel traps were engineered some 6,600 years ago, and represent one of the world’s oldest aquaculture systems.
This cultural landscape is now home to a thriving tourism program that attracts thousands of visitors each year. The World Heritage listing ensures there are enough resources for the Gunditjmara Traditional Owners running the site to improve the health of Country through cultural and environmental management.
While Queensland’s current government has cited concerns over planning restrictions, these types of concerns are typically based on perception rather than proven harm. In Queensland, they were also clearly addressed in government memos and communications.
Tasmania’s forestry sector resisted World Heritage expansion (there were four expansions between 1989–2013), yet tourism in the region remains economically valuable.
It’s unlikely the Cape York nominations would threaten the pastoral or mining industries, since most of the nominated sites are already protected as national parks.
What makes a World Heritage site?
The list of Cape York sites submitted for World Heritage consideration has some strong contenders. Quinkan Country is undoubtedly the most significant site on the list, distinguished by its diversity and richness of Aboriginal paintings and engravings.
But the list isn’t exhaustive. There are several other Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Cape York that also deserve to be considered by UNESCO. These include the giant shell mounds around Weipa, Jiigurru (Lizard Island), and the Flinders Island Group with its extraordinary rock art galleries.
Moving forward
World heritage listings in Cape York have great potential to allow Aboriginal people to care for the landscapes and create tourism infrastructure that centres Aboriginal perspectives.
Appointing Aboriginal rangers in the Flinders Island Group could help deliver a unique and sustainable cultural tourism experience, similar to that provided at the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Destination 2045 highlights the importance of developing Aboriginal ranger programs in such landscapes to boost cultural tourism and economic growth.
Inggal Odul (Denham Island part of Flinders Island Group). Source: Olivia Arnold (2023).
The Crisafulli government now has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the Traditional Custodians of the Cape York landscapes that have been put forth. We argue that the World Heritage listing outcome could help the cape’s economic development and support its communities.
Michael Westaway receives funding from then Australian Research Council and has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Kaurarag Archipelago, around Mapoon and Weipa including on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay.
Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Ania previously sat on the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nomination Bids review panel. Ania undertakes research with Aboriginal communities including within the Kaurareg Archipelago.
Denis Rose is on the board of the not-for-profit Country Needs People, which advocates for Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous Rangers Program.
Olivia Arnold has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay, Kaurarag Archipelago and Jiigurru (Lizard Island group).
Rylee Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
For millennia, First Nations people have shaped Australian ecosystems through the purposeful and skilful use of fire. This cultural burning is an important way for Aboriginal people to connect to and care for Country.
Under climate change, Earth is experiencing more frequent and severe bushfires. This has prompted a rethink of Western approaches to fire management, and triggered the development of cultural burning programs supported by government agencies.
At the same time, First Nations people have been calling to revitalise cultural burning as part of a generations-long pursuit of self-determination.
Our new research details the results of a Indigenous-led cultural burning program in critically endangered woodlands in New South Wales. It shows how Western science can support cultural burning to deliver benefits across cultures – as well as for nature.
What we did
Box-gum grassy woodland has been extensively cleared for agriculture, and only about 5% of its original extent remains. The woodlands are endangered in NSW and critically endangered across eastern Australia.
They feature diverse eucalypt trees, sparse shrubs and native tussock grasses, and support native fauna including the critically endangered regent honeyeater and swift parrot.
Our project brought together First Nations communities, ecologists from the Australian National University and officers from Local Land Services. It also involved the Rural Fire Service.
Cultural burns are relatively cool, slow fires. They trickle through the landscape, enabling animals to escape the flames. They promote the germination of plants, including culturally important food and medicine plants, among other benefits.
Cultural burns are important to First Nations people for a variety of cultural and social reasons. The practice is part of a broader suite of inherited cultural responsibilities shared through generations.
Our project involved cultural burns in the winter and spring of 2023. Wiradjuri people burned their Country around Young and Wagga Wagga, and Ngunnawal people burned their Country near Yass.
The burns took place on travelling stock reserves – remnant patches of vegetation historically used to move cattle from paddock to market. These reserves are very important for Aboriginal people because they often trace Songlines and Dreaming tracks. They are also important for farmers as places to graze cattle during drought.
Alongside the cultural burning program, ANU research ecologists monitored how the woodlands responded to the burns. They did this by surveying plants, soils and biomass before and about eight months after the burns, as well as in unburnt areas.
What we found
We measured plant responses by counting the number of plant individuals and recording germination.
Many native plant species germinated after the burn. They included native peas – one an endangered species, the small scurf pea, which germinated exclusively after the burns.
Germination was greater in burned than unburned sites, including for sensitive species that commonly respond well to fire such as native glycine (a herb) and lomandra grasses.
Importantly, the condition of a site before the burn affected how well plants responded. Condition refers to factors such as the diversity of native plants (including sensitive species) and the presence of weeds.
After the burn, native plants were more abundant on sites with a better starting condition, than on those in poor condition. This highlights the importance of improving the health of poor-condition areas after burns.
The type of appropriate management will depend on the site, but may include weed control and planting or seeding native species. More monitoring will also help quantify longer term responses after burning.
Investing in community and nature
Indigenous community members led the burns on their Country and were represented by women and men of multiple generations. They were paid for their work and offered fire-safety training and personal protective equipment.
The burns were often community events – days of connection and sharing knowledge within communities, and between cultures. This fostered opportunities for “two-way learning” and “two-eyed seeing” – ways of respectfully bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge.
Our project shows how cross-cultural partnerships can be central to conserving and restoring Australia’s unique and highly diverse ecosystems, during a period of environmental change. But for this to happen, cultural burning must be better integrated into mainstream land management.
This is especially needed in some parts of southern Australia, where government-funded programs have been less resourced than in parts of northern and Central Australia.
Government agencies and institutions can support Indigenous land stewardship in various ways.
These include:
designing projects with Indigenous people from the outset, and being directed by community aspirations which supports self-determination
forming meaningful cross-cultural partnerships across agencies to navigate complex bureaucratic processes
providing Indigenous people with resources and land access to manage Country, including funding for labour, training and equipment. Provisions for sufficient resources must be made from the beginning, in grant applications
protecting and acknowledging the rights of Indigenous people to their cultural heritage, such as traditional knowledge, through formal protection agreements.
Elle Bowd receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the ACT government, the Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council.
David Lindenmayer receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the 4AM Foundation, NSW Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birds Australia.
Geoff Cary receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Bushfire Research Centre of Excellence funded by ANU and Optus, and previously received funding from Future Ready Regions EDIS Development, Australian Research Council, ACT Government, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Greenhouse Office/Department of Climate Change Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia funding schemes, Desert Knowledge CRC, NSW Department of Environment & Conservation, Tasmanian Government and US National Science Foundation.
Braithan Bell-Garner and Dean Freeman 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.
