Many parents will be familiar with this situation: your child has a good or even best friend, but you don’t like them.
Perhaps the friend is bossy, has poor manners or jumps on your furniture. Maybe you don’t like the way your child behaves when they are with this friend.
For older children, your dislike might relate to the friend’s language, attitude towards school, or risk-taking behaviours. Maybe the friend is hot and cold and elicits more drama than Mean Girls.
This provides a rush of adrenaline, which can spur parents to take actions such as criticising the friend or even attempting to ban the friendship.
However, this approach can do more harm than good, particularly for adolescents who are hardwired to push back on their parents.
What can you do for younger kids?
With younger children, clear boundaries can be set at the outset of a playdate. For example, “my bedroom is off limits for playing” or “we don’t jump on the couch”.
If kids are using mean or rude language around each other, you can say “we don’t use that word in this house, be kind to each other”.
Playdates can be moved outside, which can be particularly helpful if a child shows loud, destructive or rude behaviour. And if you can help it, organise fewer plays with that child.
But parents may also want to reflect on why this child rubs them the wrong way. Is the reaction warranted, or does it comes from your own biases and opinions? Your child’s friends do not have to be the friends you would choose.
Change your approach for older kids
To become successful adults, teens need to move through developmental milestones of becoming autonomous and self-reliant. Intervening in their friendships interferes with this vital process of developing independence and identity, which ultimately disempowers them.
In the 1960s, US psychologist Diana Baumrind published famous research on parenting. She found an authoritarian style – where the parent exerts complete control and does not listen to the child’s needs – results in a child with less confidence and independence than one brought up in a household that has rules but is also responsive to their needs.
Adopting an authoritarian approach to friends or potential partners also risks the “Romeo and Juliet” effect, whereby disapproval makes the child more attracted to that person.
So, for teenagers and their friends, the approach should be more nuanced. The primary goal is to encourage the child to see the parent as a person to come to when they have problems. If parents are tempted to be critical, they could ask themself: is it in the best interests of your child to be controlled?
Fostering an open dialogue about friends and relationships can allow parents to have influence in a subtle and developmentally appropriate way.
For younger children, you could use a quiet moment to ask questions like “what can you say to Charlotte if you don’t want to play her game anymore?” or “what’s a good way to deal with it if she is being too bossy?”
For older children, ideally wait until your teen wants to connect, rather than launching into questions. Ask gentle, non-judgmental questions about their friendship, like “what do you like to do together?” or “tell me about what you have in common”.
If they seem upset or uncomfortable in some way, resist the urge to dismiss or solve the problem. Simply listening is the key to helping the child work it out, so they feel supported but not judged.
And remember, not all friendships last. As children move through school and grow, most will naturally make new friends and move on from old ones.
Clearly, one exception to adopting a teen-led approach is when safety is at risk. If they are being bullied or abused in any form – even if the child is opposed – parents should step in and speak to the school or other relevant authorities.
Rachael Murrihy 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 Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.
Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.
In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.
Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.
Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?
Some measles basics
Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.
Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.
Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.
Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.
The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.
Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.
A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.
In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.
In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.
Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.
A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies
A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.
This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.
Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?
All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.
Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.
Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.
But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.
Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.
Making sure you’re protected
In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.
People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.
If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.
Meru Sheel receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Anita Heywood 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.
On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.
Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]
At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.
However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.
Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?
Self-defence in the law
Self-defence has a long history in international law.
The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.
The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.
Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.
Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.
The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.
The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.
The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.
This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.
These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.
A test of proportionality
The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.
Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.
While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.
The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.
While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.
Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.
The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.
My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.
However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.
In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.
In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.
Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.
An act of aggression?
If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?
Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.
While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.
Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.
However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.
Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.
These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.
Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.(Shutterstock)
“You always mess things up. Why are you even on this project? Just quit already.” Demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour like this is more common in the workplace and damaging than many people realize. One in three employees experience such behaviours, and almost half witness them.
Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, research shows bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.
As our recent study shows, this is largely because when mistreatment seems inevitable or commonplace, bystanders are psychologically motivated to justify it rather than challenge it.
Why do bystanders rationalize mistreatment?
Humans are hardwired to see mistreatment as wrong. Most of us value fairness and want to punish wrongdoing. But if this is the case, why do bystanders so often fail to act when they witness mistreatment?
Our recent research explores this question drawing on system justification theory — the idea that people are motivated to see the systems they live and work in as fair, legitimate and stable.
When mistreatment seems inevitable — when people think “that’s just how things work around here” — bystanders face a psychological dilemma. They can either challenge the behaviour and risk conflict, exclusion or backlash, or they can rationalize it as normal or deserved.
Most people, often without realizing it, choose the latter. This mental shortcut allows them to preserve the comforting belief that the system is fair and people get what they deserve.
One in three employees experience demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour in the workplace, and almost half witness them. (Shutterstock)
Witnessing workplace mistreatment
We interviewed 554 employees who had witnessed workplace mistreatment within the past two weeks at the time the survey was conducted. They shared their thoughts on how inevitable they believed the mistreatment incident was, and how tolerant they felt their organization was toward such behaviour.
In a follow-up survey, we asked these employees whether they felt the incident they witnessed was justifiable and the target as deserving. A week later, in a third survey, we asked these bystanders to report how they behaved toward the target, and whether they tried to address or minimize the incident.
We found that when bystanders perceived mistreatment as inevitable, they were more likely to see the incident as justified and targets as deserving of that treatment. These bystanders were more likely to socially distance themselves from the target, engage in negative gossip about them and were less willing to offer help.
Bystander inaction wasn’t due to cowardice or callousness, but was often a defence mechanism. Rationalizing mistreatment allowed bystanders to preserve the belief that their workplace was just. But this coping strategy can deepen harm for those who experience mistreatment, who may be further marginalized, isolated or discredited.
How mistreatment is normalized
Workplace climates play a key role in the normalization of mistreatment. Our findings indicate when employees believed their workplace tolerated mistreatment, they were more likely to rationalize it and less likely to support the person being mistreated.
In these contexts, mistreatment isn’t just ignored, but is quietly accepted. Tacit acceptance sends a powerful message: this is normal, this is deserved, this is not worth challenging.
What does a toxic, permissive workplace look like? Warning signs include staff who feel anxious about coming to work and leaders who publicly criticize employees or tell them to “toughen up” or “not take it personally.”
If negative gossip is tolerated, or reports of mistreatment are ignored or delayed, these are also strong indicators that mistreatment has been normalized.
Organizations may fail to acknowledge these patterns for a variety of reasons, including resistance, denial or a lack of readiness. But surfacing these issues is a strength, not a weakness. It allows organizations to address root causes, retain valuable employees, and foster a more respectful environment.
When mistreatment is ignored in the workplace, it sends a message to employees that it is normal, deserved and not worth challenging. (Unsplash/Borja Verbena)
4 ways to create positive change
Even in workplaces where mistreatment has become normalized, positive change is possible. Research shows that effectively managing everyday incidents can create bottom-up effects that support broader positive change within the workplace, ultimately improving workplace climate.
Managers have a particularly pivotal role to play. When they respond quickly, support targets openly and hold perpetrators accountable, they challenge the perception that mistreatment is inevitable. They also send a broader message about what behaviours are and aren’t acceptable in the workplace.
Here are four evidence-based strategies that can help disrupt the bystander dynamic and improve workplace culture:
1. Challenge the narrative of inevitability
Organizations should clearly signal that mistreatment will not be tolerated in their workplace. This includes explicitly communicating behavioural expectations, investigating reports quickly and transparently, and ensuring senior leaders model respectful behaviour. These small but visible actions disrupt the sense that mistreatment is “just how things work.”
2. Reduce ambiguity
When organizations don’t define behavioural norms clearly, bystanders are more likely to rationalize mistreatment. Organizations should define what mistreatment includes, such as exclusion and sarcastic comments, and distinguish it from tough feedback or constructive conflict. Training can help employees recognize subtle forms of harm and reflect on how their reactions would appear to someone they respect.
3. Enforce consequences consistently
When policies exist but aren’t enforced, bystanders learn that mistreatment carries no cost. Organizations need to follow through on mistreatment policies, protect those who report it and make it clear that retaliation is unacceptable. Visibility matters: people need to see that action is taken.
When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit. (Shutterstock)
Why this matters
Much of the existing research on workplace mistreatment has focused on the importance of bystander and leader intervention. Our research adds a deeper layer by illustrating that bystanders may not intervene because they are subconsciously defending their belief in a fair and legitimate system.
This defence mechanism is especially dangerous when mistreatment is common, creating a cycle in which the most vulnerable employees are harmed twice: first by the perpetrator, and then by those who fail to stand by them.
Breaking this cycle requires more than training videos or one-off statements. It requires reshaping the climate that makes mistreatment seem normal, inevitable or trivial.
The encouraging news is that even small, consistent actions can begin to shift these dynamics. Research has shown that incivility training that teaches people how to engage in civil ways, for example, has lasting effects on employee well-being and relationships. When these harmful dynamics are shifted, it improves the workplace for everyone.
Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Guelph’s Research Leader Award.
Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Living forever has become the wellness and marketing trend of the 2020s. But cheating death – or at least delaying it – will come at a price.
What was once the domain of scientists and the uber rich is increasingly becoming a consumer product. Those pushing the idea, spearheaded by tech billionaire Bryan Johnson’s “Don’t Die” movement, believe death isn’t inevitable, but is a solvable problem.
But while the marketing is reaching the masses, this is still very much a luxury product. Immortality is being sold as exclusive, aspirational and symbolic. It’s not just about living longer – it’s about signalling status, controlling biology and being your “best future self”.
Tapping into long-held fears
What’s known as “terror management theory” puts forward the idea that humans and other animals have an instinctive drive for self-preservation. But humans are not only self-aware, they are also able to anticipate future outcomes – including the inevitability of death.
The messaging behind the push to extend life taps into this internal tension between knowledge of our own mortality and the self-preservation instinct. And to be fair, it is not a new phenomenon.
Cryonics – the preservation of bodies and brains at extremely low temperatures with the hope medical advancements will allow for their revival at some point in the future – was first popularised in Robert Ettinger’s 1962 book The Prospect of Immortality.
What’s truly new is how death is being marketed – not as fate, but as a flaw. Longevity isn’t just about living longer; it’s about turning mortality into a design problem, something to delay, manage and eventually solve.
“Biohacking” sells the idea that with the right data, tools and discipline, you can upgrade your biology – and become your best, most future-proof self.
The brands behind the living forever movement sell control, optimisation and elite identity. Ageing becomes a personal failure. Anti-ageing is self-discipline. Consumers are cast as CEOs of their own health – tracking sleep, fixing their gut and taking supplements.
But the real pitch is to consumers: buy back time, one premium subscription at a time. Johnson’s company Blueprint offers diagnostics, supplements and exercise routines bundled into monthly plans starting at $333 and climbing to over $1,600.
Longevity products promise more than health. They promise time, control and even immortality. But the quest to live forever, or at least a lot longer, raises moral and ethical questions about who benefits, and what kind of world is being created.
Without thoughtful oversight, these technologies risk becoming tools of exclusion, not progress. Because if time becomes a product, not everyone will get to check out at the same counter.
Amy Errmann 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.
“What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”
This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.
Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.
Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.
This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.
Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.
Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.
Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.
Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Making life unbearable The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.
This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.
Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.
While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.
People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.
World must force Israel to stop Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.
The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.
New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.
Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.
These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.
New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.
These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.
Show our preparedness to uphold values In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.
We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.
Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.
An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.
He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.
Protest is not enough. We need to act.
Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.
It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people.
The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza.
It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel’s assault on Gaza war as pitting “the sons of light” against “the sons of darkness”. And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism.
A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza.
Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails?
Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister?
Cloak of ‘diplomatic language’ Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of “diplomatic language” it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices.
The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for — namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States.
The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made.
I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.
The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request.
It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released.
They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.
Public interest vital It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest.
It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand’s foreign policy choices.
New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish”.
Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5).
Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chlöe Swarbrick’s private member’s Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this.
In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza.
However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel’s response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand.
Carefully worded statement In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages.
Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position.
Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel’s actions of withholding food as “intolerable” but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a “long, long way off”, without explaining why.
New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late.
John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.
And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.
Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.
After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.
In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.
Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?
Musk in politics
Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.
In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.
This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.
In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.
Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.
After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.
Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.
From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.
There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
DOGE: success and failure
Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.
However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).
In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.
Trump clips Musk’s wings
Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.
Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.
On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.
Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.
For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative wrap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.
The falling out
Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.
However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.
Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.
Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.
For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.
Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.
What now?
Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.
Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.
Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.
More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.
Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.
Henry Maher 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.
More than 150 press freedom advocacy groups and international newsrooms have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in issuing a public appeal demanding that Israel grant foreign journalists immediate, independent and unrestricted access to the Gaza Strip.
The organisations are also calling for the full protection of Palestinian journalists, nearly 200 — the Gaza Media Office says more than 230 — of whom have been killed by the Israeli military over the past 20 months.
For more than 20 months, Israeli authorities have barred foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip, says RSF in a media release.
During the same period, the Israeli army killed nearly 200 Palestinian journalists in the blockaded territory, including at least 45 slain for their work.
Palestinian journalists who continue reporting — the only witnesses on the ground — are facing unbearable conditions, including forced displacement, famine, and constant threats to their lives.
This collective appeal, launched by RSF and CPJ, brings together prominent news outlets from every continent demanding the right to send correspondents into Gaza to report alongside Palestinian journalists.
“The media blockade imposed on Gaza, combined with the massacre of nearly 200 journalists by the Israeli army, is enabling the total destruction and erasure of the blockaded territory,” said RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin.
“Israeli authorities are banning foreign journalists from entering and ruthlessly asserting their control over information.
“This is a methodical attempt to silence the facts, suppress the truth, and isolate the Palestinian press and population.
Asia Pacific Report . . . one of the signatories to the Gaza plea. Image: APR
“We call on governments, international institutions and heads of state to end their complicit silence, enforce the immediate opening of Gaza to foreign media, and uphold a principle that is frequently trampled — under international humanitarian law, killing a journalist is a war crime.
“This principle has been violated far too often and must now be enforced.”
RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin speaking at the reception celebrating seven years of Taipei’s Asia Pacific office in October 2024. Image: Pacific Media Watch
The media blockade on Gaza persists despite repeated calls from RSF to guarantee foreign journalists independent access to the Strip, and legal actions such as the Foreign Press Association’s (FPA) petition to the Israeli Supreme Court.
Palestinian journalists, meanwhile, are trapped, displaced, starved, defamed and targeted due to their work.
Those who have survived this unprecedented massacre of journalists now find themselves without shelter, equipment, medical care or even food, according to a CPJ report. They face the risk of being killed at any moment.
To end the enduring impunity that allows these crimes to continue, RSF has repeatedly referred cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC), urging it to investigate alleged war crimes committed against journalists in Gaza by the Israeli army.
RSF also provides aid to Palestinian journalists on the ground — particularly in Gaza — through partnerships with local organisations such as ARIJ (Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism).
This partnership provides Palestinian journalists with psychological and professional support, ensuring the continued publication of high-quality reporting despite the blockade and the risks.
Through this cooperation, RSF reaffirms its commitment to defending independent, rigorous journalism — even under the most extreme conditions.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 8, 2025.
Bougainville wants independence. China’s support for a controversial mine could pave the way ANALYSIS: By Anna-Karina Hermkens, Macquarie University Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country. To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe
Ponsonby community up in arms over impending post office closure Asia Pacific Report The community is up in arms over another local post office in Aotearoa New Zealand about to be closed down, this time in the iconic and historic Auckland inner city suburb of Ponsonby. A local author and founder of Greenstone Pictures, John Harris, has led a pushback against plans to close the
The community is up in arms over another local post office in Aotearoa New Zealand about to be closed down, this time in the iconic and historic Auckland inner city suburb of Ponsonby.
A local author and founder of Greenstone Pictures, John Harris, has led a pushback against plans to close the Ponsonby post office branch in Three Lamps next month with an undated open letter to the chief executive David Walsh.
Saying he was “surprised and dismayed” to see the “closing soon but staying put” sign in the Ponsonby NZ Post shop, Harris pointed out that the small office gave “great service to dozens of businesses” in the area, and hundreds of residents.
“It is misleading on your poster to claim that people will be able to obtain the same services at nearby post shops like that in Jervois Road,” Harris said.
“Will they be able to pay their bills and car registration there? Collect mail and parcels? Buy courier bags and send mail and parcels?
“And do you expect them to walk there? It is not helpful to say this closure ‘might mean a few minutes extra drive’.
This assumed that all clients were using a car, not elderly or young who were on foot.
Parking in busy streets “And people are expected to try and find parking on other busy streets — Jervois Road, Karangahape Road, Wellesley Street.”
Harris said: “The Ponsonby post shop is a vital part of the network that binds the community together.
“To close it is like removing part of the community’s nervous system: an ill-considered stab at the heart of a community which has always been vibrant, socially aware and productive.”
The NZ Post website proclaims that “we provide customers with the solutions and products to help them communicate and do business.”
However, said Harris, this planned closure for July 4 did not match those promises.
Harris also pointed out that NZ Post made a $16 million operating profit for the last six months of 2024.
The Ponsonby protest letter from a local community advocate to the NZ Post. Image: APR
“Congratulations. I’m pleased you are keeping NZ Post viable. But it shows there is a bit of ‘wriggle room’ to keep the Ponsonby store open.”
Digital services use In response to the call to reconsider the decision, a customer services officer replied on June 6 on behalf of chief executive Walsh, saying that the NZ Post Office needed to “ensure our physical locations are in the right places and operating efficiently” in an age where more people used digital services.
“In some areas, including Ponsonby, we’ve had more than one store serving the same neighbourhood. That’s not a sustainable way for us to operate, so we’ve had to make some changes.”
However, critics of the decision to close the Ponsonby store say the reasoning was “not credible”, stressing that all claimed alternative postal stores are several kilometres away.
Harris, a children’s author with a strong association with the local community stretching back to the 1970s and a former editor of West End News in Freemans Bay, acknowledged that the Ponsonby PO boxes lobby was being kept open, “but what about the ordinary rank-and-file residents and small business owners who value the other everyday services offered at the store?”
He said he had written to local MP, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick and the Ponsonby Business Association seeking their support.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 7, 2025.
‘They cannot block us,’ says activist on Madleen flotilla aid ship to Gaza Pacific Media Watch One of the 12 activists on board the Gaza Freedom Flotilla aid vessel Madleen has posted an update on their progress, saying the mission would not be deterred by Israel’s threats to block them. In a video posted to X, Thiago Ávila said the crew, which includes high-profile Swedish climate activist Greta
Jeremy Rose: Mister Netanyahu have you no sense of decency? Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose The word antisemitism has become so debased that depending on who is using it I might well take it as a sign that the accused is worth listening to. When the World Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest,
Marshall Islands nuclear legacy: report highlights lack of health research By Giff Johnson, editor, Marshall Islands Journal, and RNZ Pacific correspondent A new report on the United States nuclear weapons testing legacy in the Marshall Islands highlights the lack of studies into important health concerns voiced by Marshallese for decades that make it impossible to have a clear understanding of the impacts of the 67
New rules for cosmetic injectables aim to make the industry safer. Will they work? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney BearFoto/Shutterstock New guidelines to regulate Australia’s booming cosmetic procedures industry have been called “tough” and “a crackdown” in media reports this week. On Tuesday, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) announced the new guidelines – one for procedures, the
Keith Rankin Analysis – Equity Rights: UBI, SUI, BUI, HUI, or GUI? Analysis by Keith Rankin. Capitalism is in crisis, and our species’ imagination to save ourselves is sorely lacking. There are of course understandings out there, and solutions; but they are so heavily gate-kept that conversations about saving ourselves are well-nigh impossible. It remains a puzzle why those political and intellectual leaders who would most benefit
‘Godfather of AI’ now fears it’s unsafe. He has a plan to rein it in Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Armin Chitizadeh, Lecturer, School of Computer Science, University of Sydney fran_kie/Shutterstock This week the US Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed two men suspected of bombing a fertility clinic in California last month allegedly used artificial intelligence (AI) to obtain bomb-making instructions. The FBI did not disclose the
John Pesutto owes Moira Deeming $2.3m, but he doesn’t have it. Can former premiers be forced to pick up the tab? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Legg, Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney Victorian MP Moira Deeming attracted headlines recently when news broke she’s intending to sue three former Liberal premiers, among other party figures. Why? Deeming is trying to recoup millions of dollars in legal costs after a successful defamation case. Who
The kimono is more than an artefact and more than clothing. It is a concept artists will make their own Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sasha Grishin, Adjunct Professor of Art History, Australian National University The kimono garment, the national dress of Japan, carries within itself all of the magic and traditions of Japanese culture. The basic features of the kimono are fairly simple. It is a wrapped front garment with square
One of the 12 activists on board the Gaza Freedom Flotilla aid vessel Madleen has posted an update on their progress, saying the mission would not be deterred by Israel’s threats to block them.
In a video posted to X, Thiago Ávila said the crew, which includes high-profile Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, was not intimidated by a message they had received from Israel on Thursday, reports Al Jazeera.
He said Israeli authorities had said that the Madleen, which is carrying food and medical supplies, would be blocked from entering Gaza — and that if they attempted to deliver them, they would come under attack.
“It’s important that we understand that [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and any other repressive regime throughout history, they actually fear the people, we do not fear them,” he said.
“We know that this is part of a global uprising much larger than this humble mission of 12 people on a small boat. It will not be through force that they will make a way to defeat us.”
With no other vessel able to respond, the Madleen diverted to the distressed vessel, where it found 30 to 40 people trapped in a rapidly deflating dinghy.
While the crew of the Madleen were attempting a rescue of their own, they were approached at speed by a unit of the Libyan Coast Guard, specifically one belonging to the Tareq Bin Zayed brigade, which Al Jazeera has previously reported upon.
On realising that the approaching vessel belonged to the Libyan Coast Guard, four dinghy passengers jumped into the water and swam to the Madleen, where they were rescued.
The remainder were taken on board the Libyan Coast Guard’s vessel and presumably returned to Libya.
It’s the 6th day of our journey onboard the Madleen to #breakthesiege of Gaza and create a people’s humanitarian sea corridor! The Freedom Flotilla Coalition will never stop due to the Zionists threats. We know we have billions of people along with the 12 of us on this boat! pic.twitter.com/FfIDDtVbX7
The word antisemitism has become so debased that depending on who is using it I might well take it as a sign that the accused is worth listening to.
When the World Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest, he responded by saying the court was being antisemitic. One of the court’s legal advisers was Theodor Meron, a former Israeli ambassador and legal adviser who spent a chunk of his childhood in a Nazi concentration camp.
Last month, Netanyahu declared the leaders of France, the UK and Canada of fuelling antisemitism.
Their “crime”? Threatening “concrete action” against Israel if it continues its “egregious” blockade of aid entering Gaza.
Egregious not genocidal. And the concrete action referred to wasn’t sanctions or a full arms embargo but stalling free trade talks.
The bitter irony is that with none of those countries having yet imposed a complete ban on arms exports to Israel they are all in a sense fuelling a genocide.
The Army-McCarthy hearings We’re coming up to the 71st anniversary of the Army-McCarthy hearings where an army lawyer, Joseph Welch, rebuked Senator Joseph McCarthy with the famous line: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
We’ll be waiting a long time for the wanted war criminal Netanyahu to show any decency, but could we be approaching a tipping point where the establishment finally calls off a witch hunt after realising no one is safe from false accusations.
The McCarthyite red scare, which began in the late 1940s, saw more than 2000 federal workers sacked, thousands of academics, teachers, and union members pressured or forced to resign due to anti-communist policies, and up to 500 Hollywood directors and actors blacklisted for being leftwing or refusing to name names.
Welch’s rebuke was triggered by none of that. It was McCarthy turning his metaphorical guns onto the military implying he would expose high ranking army personnel that saw the army lawyer return fire.
The conflating of criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been spectacularly successful in making any criticism of Israel a potentially career ending move. Three Ivy League presidents have been pushed out of their jobs for failing to crack down hard enough on students protesting the brutality of Israel’s ongoing genocide.
UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose popularity had seen the party become the biggest political movement in Europe, was toppled in 2016 after bogus accusations of antisemitism.
In the purge of the Labour Party that followed Jews were five times more likely to be investigated for antisemitism than goys.
It’s the same story in Germany where Jews feature prominently among those cancelled for alleged antisemitism. Renowned professor of Jewish studies Peter Schäfe was forced to resign as the director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum after it retweeted a post critical of Germany’s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolutions.
Greece’s former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis — not a Jew — has been banned from Germany or even appearing via Zoom for this response, on 8 October 2023, to being asked if he condemned Hamas:
“I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the perpetrator or the victim. What I do not condemn is armed resistance to an apartheid system designed as part of a slow-burning, but inexorable, ethnic cleansing programme. As a European, it is important to refrain from condemning either the Israelis or the Palestinians when it is us, Europeans, who have caused this never-ending tragedy: after practising rabid anti-Semitism for centuries, leading up to the uniquely vile Holocaust, we have been complicit for decades with the slow genocide of Palestinians, as if two wrongs make one right.”
That nuanced response, with its acknowledgement of the dreadful legacy of real antisemitism, has not only seen him banned from speaking — in person or virtually — but dropped by his German publisher.
Antisemitism is often referred to as the oldest hatred — with good reason — but the word itself is relatively recent.
A ‘scientific’ word for an old hatred Nineteenth century German journalist, Wilhelm Marr, popularised the term in a pamphlet the title of which translates as: The way to victory of Germanism over Judaism.
What distinguished antisemitism from the commonly used Judenhass — or Jewish hate — was the idea that it was a Jew’s race not their religion that was deserving of hate.
Antisemitism was a prejudice proud to speak its name. It was respectable in a way that religious intolerance wasn’t. Prominent professors and politicians happily declared themselves antisemites and adherents of “scientific racism”.
It was an old idea dressed up in new clothing. Fifteenth century Spain passed Limpieza de Sangre (cleanliness of blood) statutes to allow discrimination against Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity.
The Judeo-Christian civilisational conflict with Islam, often referred to by right-wing supporters of Israel, is a relatively new construct. When the Jews were expelled from Spain, the Ottomans sent ships to take them to new homes in Istanbul, Thessaloniki and Izmer.
Times change and while it was once possible — even common — to be a respectable antisemite and scientific racist but frowned upon to discriminate based on religious belief, now the reverse is true.
So-called new atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins declare all religions bad but Islam worse.
“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” Dawkins once tweeted.
The cultures of Europe have indeed cultivated racist ideas for centuries. And just as half a millennia ago conversion offered you no protection from the racism of the Spanish court, embracing Buddhism didn’t protect Columbia University student Moshen Mahdawi from being snatched from a naturalisation interview by balaclava-clad ICE agents.
His crime? Being Palestinian and telling his story.
It’s a topsy-turvy world where life-long anti-fascists like Jeremy Corbyn and Yanis Varoufakis are sanctioned on bogus claims of antisemitism while the likes of Elon Musk and Hungarian PM Victor Orban — both peddlers of old-style antisemitic conspiracies — are welcomed to Israel as friends and allies in a contrived battle of civilisations.
One thing that differentiates antisemitism from the Judeophobia, which has been a European disease since the early days of Christianity, is that it places Jews among the victims of the continent’s white supremacist legacy.
It’s perhaps no coincidence the Christopher Columbus set sail for the Americas in the same year, 1492, that Spain expelled its Jews and Muslims.
The settler colonisation of the Americas has been estimated by historian David Stannard to have resulted in the death of 100 million indigenous people — many from introduced diseases but tens of millions also died in genocides only recently making their way into history books.
Last month, when Netanyahu declared Israel’s attacks on Gaza “a war against human beasts” he was echoing the words of settler colonialists from Alaska to Aotearoa and the dehumanising language of the Nazis against the Jews.
So, back to that question about whether we’ve reached a tipping point where unfair accusations of antisemitism will be seen in a similar light to McCarthy’s red scare.
With Netanyahu accusing the leader of the Democrats party, Yair Golan, an IDF reserve major-general, of promoting a blood libel for speaking out against the starving of babies in Gaza, it’s hard not to draw parallels with the Army-McCarthy hearings.
It’s worth quoting the words that saw Israel’s PM accuse Golan of a blood libel — a reference to the lie that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish children in the baking of matzos, and a trigger for centuries of pogroms.
“A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set goals for itself like the expulsion of a population.”
The idea that an IDF general speaking out against the killing of babies is propagating racist hatred of Jews is surely a leap too far even for many fervent Zionists.
Another sign that the tide might be turning is Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, saying the US administration’s weaponisation of the IHRA definition is making academics and students (including Jews) less safe.
The self-described Zionist said the definition was being distorted and used to silence anti-Israel critics.
The IHRA working definition has been widely adopted internationally — including by institutions in New Zealand and Australia.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both criticised the definition claiming it has seen those documenting Israel’s human rights abuses being falsely accused of antisemitism.
It’s a tragedy that weaponised accusations of antisemitism aimed at protecting Israel from criticism are obscuring a rise in Judeophobic conspiracy theories and attacks on Jewish community centres and synagogues around the world.
And even more tragically that those accusations are blunting criticisms of Israel that could help bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end.
A new report on the United States nuclear weapons testing legacy in the Marshall Islands highlights the lack of studies into important health concerns voiced by Marshallese for decades that make it impossible to have a clear understanding of the impacts of the 67 nuclear weapons tests.
The report was funded by Greenpeace Germany and is an outgrowth of the organisation’s flagship vessel, Rainbow Warrior III, visiting the Marshall Islands from March to April to recognise the 40th anniversary of the resettlement of the nuclear test-affected population of Rongelap Atoll.
Dr Mahkijani said that among the “many troubling aspects” of the legacy is that the United States had concluded, in 1948, after three tests, that the Marshall Islands was not “a suitable site for atomic experiments” because it did not meet the required meteorological criteria.
Dr Makhijani highlights the point that, despite early documentation in the immediate aftermath of the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test and numerous anecdotal reports from Marshallese women about miscarriages and still births, US government medical officials in charge of managing the nuclear test-related medical programme in the Marshall Islands never systematically studied birth anomalies.
Committed billions of dollars The US Deputy Secretary of State in the Biden-Harris administration, Kurt Cambell, said that Washington, over decades, had committed billions of dollars to the damages and the rebuilding of the Marshall Islands.
“I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden, and we are doing what we can to support the people in the [Compact of Free Association] states, including the Marshall Islands,” he told reporters at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Nuku’alofa last year.
“This is not a legacy that we seek to avoid. We have attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment.”
Among points outlined in the new report:
Gamma radiation levels at Majuro, the capital of the Marshall Islands, officially considered a “very low exposure” atoll, were tens of times, and up to 300 times, more than background in the immediate aftermaths of the thermonuclear tests in the Castle series at Bikini Atoll in 1954.
Thyroid doses in the so-called “low exposure atolls” averaged 270 milligray (mGy), 60 percent more than the 50,000 people of Pripyat near Chernobyl who were evacuated (170 mGy) after the 1986 accident there, and roughly double the average thyroid exposures in the most exposed counties in the United States due to testing at the Nevada Test Site.
Women from the nuclear test-affected Rongelap Atoll greeted the Rainbow Warrior and its crew with songs and dances as part of celebrating the 40th anniversary of the evacuation of Rongelap Atoll in 1985 by the Rainbow Warrior. Image: RNZ Pacific/Giff Johnson
Despite this, “only a small fraction of the population has been officially recognised as exposed enough for screening and medical attention; even that came with its own downsides, including people being treated as experimental subjects,” the report said.
Women reported adverse outcomes “In interviews and one 1980s country-wide survey, women have reported many adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said the report.
“They include stillbirths, a baby with part of the skull missing and ‘the brain and the spinal cord fully exposed,’ and a two-headed baby. Many of the babies with major birth defects died shortly after birth.
“Some who lived suffered very difficult lives, as did their families. Despite extensive personal testimony, no systematic country-wide scientific study of a possible relationship of adverse pregnancy outcomes to nuclear testing has been done.
“It is to be noted that awareness among US scientists of the potential for major birth defects due to radioactive fallout goes back to the 1950s. Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivor data has also provided evidence for this problem.
“The occurrence of stillbirths and major birth defects due to nuclear testing fallout in the Marshall Islands is scientifically plausible but no definitive statement is possible at the present time,” the report concluded.
“The nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands created a vast amount of fission products, including radioactive isotopes that cross the placenta, such as iodine-131 and tritium.
“Radiation exposure in the first trimester can cause early failed pregnancies, severe neurological damage, and other major birth defects.
No definitive statement possible “This makes it plausible that radiation exposure may have caused the kinds of adverse pregnancy outcomes that were experienced and reported.
“However, no definitive statement is possible in the absence of a detailed scientific assessment.”
Scientists who traveled with the Rainbow Warrior III on its two-month visit to the Marshall Islands earlier this year collected samples from Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap and other atolls for scientific study and evaluation.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New guidelines to regulate Australia’s booming cosmetic procedures industry have been called “tough” and “a crackdown” in media reports this week.
On Tuesday, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) announced the new guidelines – one for procedures, the other for advertising – and said it put the lucrative industry “on notice”.
The guidelines stem from AHPRA’s 2023 review of non-surgical cosmetic procedures – think injectables (such as Botox and dermal fillers), laser skin resurfacing, chemical peels, hair transplants and more.
That review was established only after AHPRA investigated widespread reports about unsafe practices in cosmetic surgery in 2022, exposing risks and deficiencies in both the surgical and non-surgical cosmetics sector.
These included the predatory targeting of under-18s, inadequate training for practitioners, and poor screening of patients. For example, 52-second telehealth consultations.
So, how tough are these guidelines? And can they be enforced?
What do the guidelines say?
The new rules aim to put safety before sales and cover many more issues than any previous guidance.
These new rules ban financial incentives, discounts and other financial arrangements, such as “contra deals” – where Botox injections might be administered in exchange for restaurant meals, as occurred in one New South Wales case.
They also ban perks for social media influencers, who often get free treatments.
The guidelines confirm influencers recruited by practitioners should not create unreasonable expectations of benefits for patients (which is already against the law if practitioners do it). If influencers do, the recruiting practitioner will be responsible.
The new rules for health practitioners aim to make non-surgical procedures safer. Tijana Simic/Shutterstock
Botox is a prescription-only drug subject to strict controls.
But several practitioners have been disciplined for administering or procuring it inappropriately, such as in day spas or by arranging “remote” prescriptions by email. Recent cases of unregistered people injecting it at parties, resulting in botulism (a serious condition), also suggest gaps in oversight.
The new rules allow only suitably trained practitioners to prescribe these drugs following an in-person or video consultation. Batch prescribing – issuing prescriptions for multiple patients – is now clearly unacceptable.
The guidelines emphasise skills and training. Registered nurses will now need a year’s experience in other fields before giving cosmetic treatments. Enrolled nurses will be expected to first have a year of supervised, relevant experience.
There must also be robust protocols to manage any complications after a procedure. Practitioners must provide detailed aftercare instructions, and ensure patients are aware of their right to complain and to whom.
The guidelines address this by requiring registered nurses and nurse practitioners to thoroughly assess a patient’s suitability for a treatment.
They must confirm the patient’s expectations are realistic, discuss risks and alternatives (including no treatment), be transparent about their own skills and experience, and explain all costs.
The guidelines specify that screening assessments must check for underlying conditions, such as body dysmorphic disorder, which is known to be more common in those seeking cosmetic treatments.
Patients experiencing this condition would likely be unsuitable. That’s because people with body dysmorphic disorder are at higherrisk of poor psychosocial outcomes (such as poorer mental health or wellbeing).
If found unsuitable, patients must be refused treatment and referred to another appropriate practitioner, such as a psychologist, for appropriate support.
Overall, the new guidelines foster better informed consent processes. They prompt practitioners to screen for and discuss the psychosocial risks known to be associated with cosmetic procedures.
Consultations will have to screen patients to see if they’re suitable for treatment. Chay_Tee/Shutterstock
What about under 18s?
AHPRA says the new rules offer greater protection for young people through new safeguards and special rules for under-18s.
The guidelines say prescribing dermal fillers to minors is inappropriate. For other procedures, they require parental or guardian consent where practicable, and a cooling-off period of seven days between obtaining informed consent and the procedure.
However, health practitioners will still be able to exercise their clinical judgement for under-18s within the limits of the law.
Instead, they define the standards expected of all registered health practitioners who perform non-surgical cosmetic procedures – except doctors, who have their own guidelines.
If a health practitioner does not comply with the guidelines, the board responsible for their registration and accreditation – for example, the Nursing and Midwifery Board – can take “immediate action” to suspend them or launch disciplinary proceedings for extended sanctions.
Before now, there were no specific rules about cosmetic procedures – just the general (but important) codes of conduct for each profession.
The guidelines give real teeth to the bodies that regulate the health profession and will likely enable them to weed out bad actors from the cosmetic workforce. Even so, they cannot compensate or redress patient harms.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Capitalism is in crisis, and our species’ imagination to save ourselves is sorely lacking. There are of course understandings out there, and solutions; but they are so heavily gate-kept that conversations about saving ourselves are well-nigh impossible. It remains a puzzle why those political and intellectual leaders who would most benefit from a regime of socially inclusive capitalism have been so avid in their anti-reform gatekeeping.
The missing ingredient from the capitalism that most of us know, or know of, is ‘public equity’. Capitalism is presented to us all as a system of markets, individualism, laws, and private property rights. The crisis of capitalism can be addressed through the development of a set of public property rights, which we may call ‘public equity’. It is the establishment of public property rights that is necessary to democratise capitalism.
New Zealand’s surprising history of universal income
At the end of my Zero-Sum Fiscal Narratives (22 May 2025), I suggested that we need to promote a narrative of “public equity over pay equity as an efficient means to correct destabilising inequality”.
In global capitalism, the first real narrative of public equity – even though it wasn’t called that – belongs to the New Zealand social security reforms of 1938. And the particular policy announced in those reforms, and implemented in the 1940 financial year, was known as Universal Superannuation. This was the activation of a human right; the right of a country’s citizens, once they reached a certain age, to receive a private income in the form of a public dividend. Irrespective of race, sex, or creed.
At its initial conception, the ‘Super’ was modest; but was projected to grow, in accordance with affordability constraints and fiscal prioritisation. Most good big things start with small beginnings. An annual payment of $20 was set to commence in 1940. And it commenced in 1940. And the 1938 universal welfare state came in under budget (refer Elizabeth Hanson, The Politics of Social Security, 1980).
The concept of Universal Superannuation proved to be extremely popular; a policy from the radical centre that pleased most of the public, though – until its popularity was demonstrated in 1938 – few of the politicians and other ‘opinion leaders’. The policy came to be because Michael Joseph Savage felt that his Labour Government had to come good on its most important 1935 promise, and because the ‘left’ and ‘right’ proposals favoured by each of the two main factions of the Labour Government (fortunately) cancelled out in the political numbers game.
The universal proposal came through the middle, between left-wing attempts to radically extend redistributive measures favouring working-class families and Labour right-wing attempts to bring in an actuarial pension system based on the supposed ‘miracle’ of compound interest. The latter idea, pushed by the finance industry, was to create a contributory ‘money mountain’ from which pensions from some future date would be paid to retired working men. (This idea disclaimed the obvious reality that all spending of pension income – not just public pensions – represents a slice of present [not past] economic output.)
(On the miracle of compound interest, it is useful to imagine persons born around 1920 saving regular percentages of their salaries from early adulthood until age 65. Such persons became rich from home-ownership, not from compound interest.)
This retirement-income policy based on public equity was not successfully exported to the wider world. The war got in the way, and unconditional non-means-tested payments to citizens of a certain age never caught on internationally. The post-depression environment – a relatively sexually-egalitarian time – was displaced by a post-war environment, which favoured men. The more common post-war welfare model was, in its various guises, ‘social insurance’. And even Universal Superannuation in New Zealand came to be seen, increasingly, through a ‘social insurance lens’; recipients widely believed it was a contributory scheme.
The aim of initially Labour, and subsequently National, was to gradually raise the amount of Super paid until it would render redundant (and henceforth displace) the alternative means-tested Age Benefit. National became increasingly committed to the concept of universal income support, favouring taxable universal benefits which would in practice confer more to each low-income recipient than to each high-income recipient. In the 1950s and 1960s, income tax rates were much more heavily graduated than they have been since the 1980s. (‘Graduation’ of income tax rates means higher ‘marginal tax rates’ faced by people with higher incomes.)
By 1970, the full convergence between Universal Superannuation and the Age Benefit had still not been achieved. Retired persons would still choose either US or AB. The convergence eventually took place, in 1976.
The universality of Super was lost twice, by the same man, who came from ‘working class aristocracy’: Roger Douglas.
Douglas replaced Super with an actuarial (‘money mountain’ for men) system in 1974; a system which became ‘the election issue’ in 1975. This plan was conceived in the days before Equal Pay for women; ie conceived when ‘labour’ was still a highly male-gendered word in certain Labour circles. (Equal pay for women was legislated for in 1972, when Robert Muldoon was Finance Minister.)
Robert Muldoon won a resounding victory – like Savage in 1938 – by committing to Universal Superannuation (albeit under the name National Superannuation). Muldoon, when recreating Super, did so by retiring the Age Benefit, leaving Super as the only publicly-sourced retirement income.
About Douglas’s 1974 scheme, Margaret McLure (A Civilised Community, 1998) wrote (pp.190/91): “Douglas’ plan was rooted in early and mid-twentieth century English labour history… It drew on the 1904 ideas of Joseph Rowntree which had helped shape English social insurance, and on the English Fabian Society’s promotion of a union’s industrial pension plan of 1954… It rewarded the contribution of the fulltime long-serving male worker and provided him [and his dependent wife] with comfort and security in old age.” The full earnings-related benefit would only be payable on turning 60 to life-long workers born after 1957. It was less generous to others, and represented a backward-looking “narrow vision for the late twentieth century”. While more like the current bureaucratic Australian scheme (with its many hidden costs) than today’s New Zealand Superannuation, the Douglas scheme had inbuilt disincentives for people of ‘retirement age’ to continue in some form of paid work after becoming eligible for a pension. An older population – as in the 2030s – requires older workers with work-life flexibility.
Douglas, in the later-1980s, again removed the universality of Super by introducing a ‘tax surcharge’ on superannuitants’ privately-sourced income, an indirect way of converting Super into a means-tested Age Benefit. Douglas renamed National Superannuation ‘Guaranteed Retirement Income’. (Douglas liked the word ‘guaranteed’, using it as a label for other benefits too. ‘Guaranteed’ implies a ‘safety net – ie an income top-up – rather than an unconditional private income payable to all citizens of a certain age. Income top-ups come with poverty traps; very high [sometimes 100%] ‘effective marginal tax rates’, when increased income from one source displaces [rather than adding to] income from another source.)
Super was restored in 1997 as a universal income when Winston Peters was Treasurer in a coalition government; Peters, the heir to the universalist tradition within the National Party as it once was, has enabled Savage’s enlightened ‘public equity’ reform to survive to the present day, albeit as an international outlier.
A Right. Or a Benefit?
The presumption against universalist principles has come from Generation X, the generation born either side of 1970 who have never known any form of capitalism other than 1980s’ and post-1980s’ neoliberalism. (And noting that Roger Douglas was the poster-‘child’ in New Zealand of the neoliberal revolution which acted to restore capitalism to its neoclassical basics; markets, individualism, laws, private property, and public sector minimalism).
This week I read this from Liam Dann, journalist on all matters relating to capitalism, and very much a ‘Gen Xer’, who wrote: Inside Economics: Should you take New Zealand Superannuation if you don’t need it? 4 June 2025. Dann is trying to resolve the clear view of his parents’ generation that Super is a ‘right’, against his own view that Super is an age ‘benefit’; a benefit that should be bureaucratically ‘targeted’. (A benefit in this sense is a redistributive ‘transfer’. By contrast, an income ‘right’ is a shareholder’s equity dividend; in a public context, the word ‘shareholder’ equates to the word ‘citizen’.)
Liam Dann asks an excellent question though – “Should rich people opt out of NZ Super?” – albeit by misconstruing the opting process. New Zealand Super is in fact an ‘opt-in’ benefit, as Dann comes to realise. Much of the present opposition to Super comes from people who would rather that the money paid to the rich was instead paid to bureaucrats to stop the rich from getting it. In reality, there is probably a significant number of rich older people who don’t get Super because they never bothered applying to MSD to get it. As Dann notes, the government is remiss in not collecting data on the numbers of eligible people who do not opt in to NZS. (And journalists, before Dann, have been remiss in not asking for that data.)
We should also note that, in spite of indications that ‘first-world’ life expectancies are levelling out, and indeed falling in some countries, Denmark is looking to raise its age of eligibility for a public pension to 70. In my view, this is moving in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, it is possible to both move in the direction that I am suggesting below, while raising what might be called the age of ‘privileged retirement’, meaning the age at which older people are entitled, as of right, to a higher pension or pension-like income than other citizens.
A Universal Basic-Income has come to mean an unconditional publicly-sourced private income, available to all ‘citizens’ above a certain age, which satisfies some kind of sufficiency test. Thus, a UBI is meant to be sufficient, on its own; a ‘stand-alone income’. New Zealand Super (NZS) – the present name for Universal Superannuation (from 1940) and National Superannuation (from 1976) – is such an income, designed to meet a sufficiency test. In particular, the ‘married-rate’ Super – $24,776 for a year before tax – is a UBI in Aotearoa New Zealand, payable to people aged over 65 who meet a certain definition of ‘citizenship’; a definition that neither discriminates on the basis of sex, race, nor creed.
However, a UBI is considered, by many of its advocates, to be a sufficient adult income, not just a retirement income. Just as NZS is in practice, a UBI needs to be a complement to wages, not a substitute for wages.
Technically, it is very simple to convert the ‘married-rate’ NZS into a UBI for all adults. Just two things would need to be done: lower the age of entitlement to 18, and pay for it by removing the concessionary income tax brackets (10.5%, 17.5%, 30%). (The higher ‘non-married’ rates would continue to apply to people over 65.) Under this proposal, there would no longer be MSD benefits nor student allowances, though there would still be some benefit supplements for MSD to process, such as Accommodation Supplements and NZS ‘single-rate’ supplements.
This UBI proposal would not be fiscally neutral; though it would be less unaffordable than many people would guess. (In practice, a fiscal stimulus at present could pay for itself in increased growth-revenue in just a few years; it might even ‘return New Zealand to surplus’ sooner than realistic current projections.) For present superannuitants working part-time, it would represent a small reduction in after-tax income, given that they would be paying income tax on their wages at what is commonly known today as the “secondary tax rate”.
Other than fiscal non-neutrality, two objections to such a UBI would be these: New Zealand has too many workers who would not meet the present NZS definition of ‘citizen’; and the UBI would be too generous to young people not working and living with their parents.
So, while it might be less unworkable than many people would expect, this instant-UBI policy is not one I would favour.
SUI
SUI stands for Simple Universal-Income. Self. We note that the prefix ‘sui-‘ means ‘self’; equity rights are a development of liberal individualism, not of ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’. Some people equate public property rights with Marxian collectivism, with the ‘nationalisation of the means of production’. They couldn’t be more wrong. Collectivist schemes involve full government retention of citizens’ incomes; they are schemes of government control; completely the opposite of universal income.
A universal private income drawn as a dividend from public wealth is individualism, not collectivism. Indeed, the natural political home of reformed capitalism is the political centre-right, not the left; albeit the new centre-right, not the privileged and stale centre-right politics which New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has so far represented. A ‘universal private income drawn from public wealth’ is different from a ‘privileged private income drawn from public wealth’.
It would be very simple to create an SUI in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand’s income-tax scale has five rates: 10.5%, 17.5%, 30%, 33% and 39%. The 33% rate has formed the backbone of the New Zealand tax scale since 1988. As with the UBI example above, the SUI proposal simply eliminates the 10.5%, 17.5% and 30% rates. In return every adult economic citizen – effectively every ‘tax resident’ – would receive an annual SUI (ie dividend) of $10,122.50; that’s $195.66 per week. For all people receiving Benefits – including Superannuation, Student Allowances, Family Tax Credits – the first $195.66 per week of their benefit payments would be recategorised as their SUI dividend.
That’s it. (The dividend of $10,122.50 is simply a grossing-up of the maximum benefit accrued through those lower tax rates.) Unlike the UBI option, all existing benefits and bureaucratic infrastructure would be retained; at least until they can be reconfigured in an advantageous way. From an accounting viewpoint, existing Benefits would be split into unconditional and conditional components.
It means no change for all persons earning over $78,100 per year ($1,502 per week) before tax. And it means no change for all persons receiving total Benefit income (after tax) more than $195.66 per week. (These people could continue to be called ‘Beneficiaries’, but without stigma. Without stigma, Superannuitants can be happy to be classed as Beneficiaries.) People whose present total weekly Benefit income is currently less than $195.66 would cease to be called Beneficiaries; they would cease to be clients of the MSD, the Ministry of Social Development.
What this means is that most New Zealanders, on Day One, would see no change in their bank accounts. Nobody would receive a lower income. And for most who receive a higher income, it would be only higher by small amount.
This begs the question, if most people’s disposable incomes do not increase, or only increase by a trivial amount, then why bother? The important societal benefits would be dynamic; would be around incentives.
First, individuals (of all adult ages, male and female, regardless of their position in their households) would be incentivised to take employment risks – including self-employment risks – if they receive a core unconditional income that they do not stand to lose when risk doesn’t pay off. Labour supply is boosted; as is the economy’s ‘surge capacity’ (technically, the elasticity of labour supply increases).
Second, lower-paid individuals – many of whom are women – would have increased bargaining power (through unions and as individuals) and would not have to resort to contestable narratives such as ‘pay equity’ in order to achieve a fair wage.
Third, individuals would be better able to negotiate weekly hours of work to optimise their work-life balance. The SUI would minimise the present ‘twin evils’ of overwork and underwork.
Fourth, and especially for today’s high-income workers, the SUI represents an unconditional form of income insurance to facilitate the acquisition of basic needs during a period of what economists call ‘frictional unemployment’; being ‘between jobs’. Or a period of ‘voluntary unemployment’, such as attending to the health needs of another family member.
Fifth, the SUI would count as a democratic dividend, an acknowledgement that each society’s wealth arises from both (present and past) private and public enterprise, and that – for that reason – both private and public dividends should be part of societies’ income mix. All citizens would have both private ‘skin in the game’ and a sense of ‘public inclusion’, motivating all citizens to have an ‘us’ mentality, rather than a divisive and exclusionary ‘them and us’ mentality.
The SUI is my preferred option for New Zealand for the year 2026.
BUI
BUI stands for ‘Basic Universal-Income’. In the New Zealand context, it could be easily created by removing the 10.5%, 17.5%, and 33% income brackets. Thus, except for high-income-earners (say the five-percenters), there would be an effective flat tax set at 30% of production income. It would work much as the SUI.
I have calculated that, for New Zealand, the BUI would be $7,779.50 per year, effectively $150 per week.
To partially offset the tax cut that would be payable to people earning more than $78,100 per year, the income threshold for the 39% tax rate should come down (to $146,000, from $180,000). Tax cuts would be received by all persons earning between $78,100 and $180,000, with the maximum tax cut of just over $2,000 (just over $39 per week) being payable to someone earning $146,000.
With this BUI, compared to the SUI, there would be more day-one beneficiaries (ie more better-off people) on higher incomes, and fewer day-one beneficiaries on lower incomes. Nobody would be worse off. The dynamic benefits discussed in relation to the SUI would still apply.
This is a policy that the Act Party should embrace, given its stated commitments to liberal-democracy, individualism, enterprise, and the future of capitalism.
A wider benefit of BUI is that it could represent a small beginning to something bigger and better. Just as with Universal Superannuation, the ‘establishment fear-factor’ soon dissipated. And universal benefits came to be embraced in the 1950s by both ‘left’ and ‘right’ in Aotearoa New Zealand; a decade in which there were very few persons of working age relative to persons classifiable as ‘dependents’.
HUI
HUI represents Hybrid Universal-Income; a mix of UBI and SUI. What would happen is that the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation would be lowered, but not all the way to age 18. Today the ‘threshold age’ is 65. Under a HUI, all adult tax residents under the new threshold age would receive a SUI, on the same basis as described above.
A variant of HUI would be more flexible; a flexible Hybrid Basic Income. Everyone between say 30 and 70 would be able to have a UBI for say ten years; otherwise they would have an SUI. (This might be a policy that would work well for Denmark.)
Today a large proportion of babies are born to mothers aged 30 to 40. Many of these mothers might prefer to have children while in their early thirties, but, for financial reasons, end up having their children later. If all adults could choose when to have their ten years UBI, I could imagine many women choosing their thirties, and many men choosing their forties. Thus, women would be able to leave paid work to a greater or lesser extent around when they would most like to have children, and their partners could take their UBI after the mothers of their children have returned to fulltime employment. For persons in their forties, parenting non-infant children fits with the life-stage when many people would like to be establishing their own businesses and becoming employers. This would create incentives to both working-class (and bourgeois) human reproduction, more enterprise, and more employment opportunities in the private sector for youngish and oldish workers.
A further variant of this variant could be to extend the SUI to a UBI for individuals over 60 who lose their jobs on account of redundancy. This would help the many women such as those who were caught out by the Labour Government’s barely-noticed 2020 decision to remove NZS entitlements to ‘non-qualifying-spouses’ (ie people who become redundant, mostly women, whose life-partners are already on New Zealand Superannuation). (We might also note that the Sixth Labour Government – 2017 to 2023 – cut the after-tax wages of all women [and men too] by not inflation-adjusting income-tax bracket thresholds. Looked at in full historical context, Labour governments in New Zealand have not been kind to women.)
GUI
We might note that the UBI case, first-mentioned above, would be very close to a Generous Universal-Income. In this case, only the 39% income-tax rate would be retained, and the UI would be an annual GUI dividend of $20,922.50 (ie $402.36 per week). All income would be taxed at 39% and all economic citizens would receive a weekly private (but publicly-sourced) dividend of just over $400.
Conclusion
The UI policies presented above (possibly excepting the GUI, and the UBI) reflect a liberal non-establishment centre or centre-right political perspective. The GUI and UBI, in practice, realistically reflect only future policy directions (given their clear fiscal non-neutrality), whereas the SUI, BUI, and HUI all represent changes that could be easily implemented in the May 2026 Budget.
My preference, for immediate implementation, is the SUI. In inclusive capitalist societies, public equity returns to individuals are a right. Much of societies’ capital resource is not privately owned.
As in 1938 to 1940, New Zealand can set an example for the democratic reformation of global capitalism. Unfortunately, the 1938 to 1940 reform – Universal Superannuation – was not taken up by an otherwise distracted world. (Sadly, New Zealand’s misguided 1989 monetary policy ‘reform’ – the Reserve Bank Act – was taken up by a then-attentive wider world. Unnecessarily high interest rates have caused huge grief on a global scale.)
We can choose to have a 2026 reform – a technically simple reform, that, through being promoted to the wider world as an example of how capitalism can be democratic and inclusive – which can have beneficial global consequences. Do our leaders have the intellect, imagination and courage that Michael Joseph Savage revealed in 1938? Hopefully ‘yes’, but realistically ‘no’.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
This week the US Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed two men suspected of bombing a fertility clinic in California last month allegedly used artificial intelligence (AI) to obtain bomb-making instructions. The FBI did not disclose the name of the AI program in question.
This brings into sharp focus the urgent need to make AI safer. Currently we are living in the “wild west” era of AI, where companies are fiercely competing to develop the fastest and most entertaining AI systems. Each company wants to outdo competitors and claim the top spot. This intense competition often leads to intentional or unintentional shortcuts – especially when it comes to safety.
Coincidentally, at around the same time of the FBI’s revelation, one of the godfathers of modern AI, Canadian computer science professor Yoshua Bengio, launched a new nonprofit organisation dedicated to developing a new AI model specifically designed to be safer than other AI models – and target those that cause social harm.
So what is Bengio’s new AI model? And will it actually protect the world from AI-faciliated harm?
An ‘honest’ AI
In 2018, Bengio, alongside his colleagues Yann LeCun and Geoffrey Hinton, won the Turing Award for groundbreaking research they had published three years earlier on deep learning. A branch of machine learning, deep learning attempts to mimic the processes of the human brain by using artificial neural networks to learn from computational data and make predictions.
Bengio’s new nonprofit organisation, LawZero, is developing “Scientist AI”. Bengio has said this model will be “honest and not deceptive”, and incorporate safety-by-design principles.
According to a preprint paper released online earlier this year, Scientist AI will differ from current AI systems in two key ways.
First, it can assess and communicate its confidence level in its answers, helping to reduce the problem of AI giving overly confident and incorrect responses.
Second, it can explain its reasoning to humans, allowing its conclusions to be evaluated and tested for accuracy.
Interestingly, older AI systems had this feature. But in the rush for speed and new approaches, many modern AI models can’t explain their decisions. Their developers have sacrificed explainability for speed.
Bengio also intends “Scientist AI” to act as a guardrail against unsafe AI. It could monitor other, less reliable and harmful AI systems — essentially fighting fire with fire.
This may be the only viable solution to improve AI safety. Humans cannot properly monitor systems such as ChatGPT, which handle over a billion queries daily. Only another AI can manage this scale.
Large language models and machine learning are just small parts of today’s AI landscape.
Another key addition Bengio’s team are adding to Scientist AI is the “world model” which brings certainty and explainability. Just as humans make decisions based on their understanding of the world, AI needs a similar model to function effectively.
The absence of a world model in current AI models is clear.
One well-known example is the “hand problem”: most of today’s AI models can imitate the appearance of hands but cannot replicate natural hand movements, because they lack an understanding of the physics — a world model — behind them.
Yoshua Bengio is recognised as one of the godfathers of AI. Alex Wong/Getty Images
On the right track – but it will be bumpy
Bengio is on the right track, aiming to build safer, more trustworthy AI by combining large language models with other AI technologies.
However, his journey isn’t going to be easy. LawZero’s US$30 million in funding is small compared to efforts such as the US$500 billion project announced by US President Donald Trump earlier this year to accelerate the development of AI.
There’s also an outstanding question. Even if Bengio can build an AI system that does everything he says it can, how is it going to be able to control other systems that might be causing harm?
Still, this project, with talented researchers behind it, could spark a movement toward a future where AI truly helps humans thrive. If successful, it could set new expectations for safe AI, motivating researchers, developers, and policymakers to prioritise safety.
Perhaps if we had taken similar action when social media first emerged, we would have a safer online environment for young people’s mental health. And maybe, if Scientist AI had already been in place, it could have prevented people with harmful intentions from accessing dangerous information with the help of AI systems.
Armin Chitizadeh 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 kimono garment, the national dress of Japan, carries within itself all of the magic and traditions of Japanese culture.
The basic features of the kimono are fairly simple. It is a wrapped front garment with square sleeves that has a rectangular body where the left side is wrapped over the right, except in funerary use.
The garment may be traced back to the Heian period as a distinctive style of dress for the nobility. In the Edo period (1603–1867) it came to a glorious culmination with colourful and expensive fabrics.
The great poet Matsuo Bashō once wrote “Spring passes by / again and again in layers / of blossom-kimono”. Since childhood I’ve loved the mystical image “blossom-kimono”.
In 2020, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London staged their epic exhibition Kimono: Kyoto to Catwalk, where hundreds of garments, accessories, prints and photographs charted the history of the kimono from the 17th century through to the present.
A new exhibition from the National Gallery of Victoria is similarly ambitious. Over 70 fabulous garments of exquisite craftsmanship – some made of silk with gold and silver embroidery and dazzling designs – have been assembled within a context of over 150 paintings, posters, wood block prints, magazines and decorative arts.
Although many of the items have never been previously exhibited in Australia, most are now in the collection of the NGV, with many specifically acquired for this exhibition.
Exquisite production
There are seven newly acquired Edo-period silk and ramie kimonos, richly decorated with leaves, tendrils and falling snow. They provide us with a glimpse at the wealth and sophistication of the samurai and merchant classes of the 18th and 19th centuries.
One of the highlights is the Uchikake Furisode wedding kimono with pine, bamboo, plum and cranes, from the early to mid-19th century.
It is a display of exquisite taste with satin silk, shibori tie dyeing, and embroidery with gold thread. The birds and the vegetation seem to float on the surface and must have created an amazing sight when worn.
Uchikake Furisode wedding kimono with pine, bamboo, plum, and cranes early–mid 19th century. Satin silk, shibori tie dyeing, embroidery, gold thread, 177.5 cm (centre back) 131.0 cm (cuff to cuff). National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Purchased with funds donated by Michael and Emily Tong, 2024
The garment is simple and functional and, despite the exquisiteness of its production, it is also restrained in contrast to the conspicuous exuberance of some examples of 19th century European courtly dress.
Some of these Edo period kimonos can become quite narrative-driven in their design, as with the Hitoe kosode kimono with themes alluding to eight Noh theatre plays of the late Edo period. Slightly smaller than the wedding kimono, that was 177.5 cm long as opposed to 167 cm, this one revels in a blue background on gauze satin silk with a multiplicity of little narrative scenes like an assembly of diverse stage sets.
Hitoe kosode, kimono with themes alluding to eight Noh theatre plays late Edo period. Gauze satin silk, paste resist dye, embroidery, gold thread, 167.0 cm (centre back) 124.0 cm (cuff to cuff). National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Purchased with funds donated by Jennifer Lempriere and Michael Pithie, 2024
The exhibition also includes the work of contemporary Japanese kimono designers including Hiroko Takahashi, Jotaro Saito, Modern Antenna, Tamao Shigemune, Y&SONS, Rumi Rock and Robe Japonica.
The kimono as a concept
The kimono is more than an historic artefact, one where ideas and methods of production were to remain constant for centuries. It is also an idea that inspires designers working in international fashion houses.
The NGV exhibition includes kimono-inspired works of Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto, John Galliano, Comme des Garçon, Alexander McQueen, Givenchy, Zambesi and Rudi Gernreich.
Alexander McQueen’s Gown, belt and sandals (Dégradé) (2007) is one of the takeaway memories from this exhibition. The humble functional kimono has been totally transfigured.
To the silk-satin shell there have been added leather, metal and rubber accessories and synthetic shoulder pads. The purple and pink colour scheme and the sweeping sleeves that trail along the ground create a mesmerising and dominant phantom-like character that owns and dominates the space.
It is difficult not to be impressed by McQueen’s vision, but we have now moved quite a long way from the kimono.
The kimono is a wonderful concept – an armature on which to hang many different ideas. The beauty of this exhibition is that it frees the idea of a garment from a static piece of cloth, at best to be displayed on a dummy, to something approaching a concept in design that artists will clasp and from which they will create their own work.
There are many rich nuances in the show, for example the superb almost monochrome and somewhat gothic Men’s undergarment (nagajuban) with graveyard, skulls and crescent moon (c.1930).
Men’s undergarment (nagajuban) with graveyard, skulls and crescent moon c. 1930. Silk, wool, cotton 127.0 cm (centre back) 130.5 cm (cuff to cuff). National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Maureen Morrisey Bequest, 2018
At the same time, we have Women’s kimono with geometric design and accessories (c.1930) with its polychrome exuberance with reds, blacks and greys combining geometric motifs with soft organic feather-like forms.
Bashō’s “blossom-kimono” was a meditation on the passing of time and the hope that a young girl will live to experience wrinkles that come with old age. The kimono in this exhibition celebrates the passing of time and generational change within the life of an immortal idea about function, form and ideas of beauty.
Kimono is at the National Gallery of Victoria until October 5.
Sasha Grishin 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.
Victorian MP Moira Deeming attracted headlines recently when news broke she’s intending to sue three former Liberal premiers, among other party figures.
Why? Deeming is trying to recoup millions of dollars in legal costs after a successful defamation case.
Who pays for legal action in Australia, particularly in civil courts, can be confusing. But given how expensive litigation can be and the big names involved in this case, it’s worth unpacking.
How did we get here?
In March 2023, Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming spoke at a “Let Women Speak” rally held at Parliament House in Melbourne. The rally was interrupted by protesters, who were described as “neo-Nazis”.
After the rally, the then-Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto made a series of public statements implying Deeming had associations with the neo-Nazi groups and therefore needed to be expelled from parliament.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in December 2023 Deeming sued Pesutto in the Federal Court for defamation. A year later, she won her lawsuit.
Pesutto was ordered to pay $300,000 in damages for the harm to Deeming’s reputation and the associated emotional distress she suffered.
But that wasn’t the end of what Pesutto had to pay.
Last month, the Federal Court also ordered Pesutto to pay $2.3 million to cover Deeming’s costs in winning her suit (in addition to having to pay his own costs).
This has created some serious problems for both Pesutto and Deeming.
It is a problem for Pesutto because he doesn’t have the money to pay and is now facing bankruptcy proceedings and his own possible expulsion from parliament.
Former premier Jeff Kennett has spruiked a crowdfunding campaign to help fund Pesutto’s legal liabilities.
It is a problem for Deeming because she will be out $2.3 million if Pesutto cannot come up with the money.
So, Deeming is now looking around for someone else who might be made to pay Pesutto’s tab.
What does the law say?
The reason Pesutto has to pay is that in nearly all Australian courts, the standard order at the end of a lawsuit is that the loser has to pay the costs – for example, lawyers’ fees, court costs, and expert witness fees – of the winner.
Usually the loser simply makes payment, unless they don’t have the financial means to do so, and the court proceedings are over.
However, the court can make “third-party costs orders”. These are orders making someone other than the losing party responsible for paying the loser’s costs bill.
Deeming’s solicitor has indicated, in a widely reported letter to Pesutto’s lawyers, that Deeming intends to seek payment of her costs from up to nine Liberal Party notables, including former premiers Ted Baillieu, Denis Napthine and Jeff Kennett, due to their alleged funding of Pesutto’s legal costs during the case.
Though the court rules allow for a third party to pay costs, and courts have broad discretion to make almost any kind of costs order, the High Court has established certain circumstances that should be considered first.
These circumstances include where a party to a lawsuit is insolvent or a “person of straw”, and where a third party has an interest in the subject of the litigation.
Perhaps tellingly, the letter from Deeming’s solicitor reportedly states Pesutto was a person of straw and that the Liberal Party figures did have an interest in the proceedings. However, this would need to be accepted by a court for Deeming to be successful.
How can people bankroll the court battles of others?
Providing money to support another person bringing litigation was originally frowned on by the law. It was regarded as “champerty” and “maintenance”. Both were treated as criminal offences.
The High Court of Australia has observed that law of maintenance and champerty can been traced to the Statute of Westminster the First of 1275. Some trace it back to Greek and Roman law.
Maintenance was where a person “improperly, and for the purpose of stirring up litigation and strife, encourages others either to bring actions, or to make defences which they have no right to make”.
But there were exceptions, such as where the maintainer acted from charitable motives or because the person maintained was family.
Champerty was a type of maintenance where the funder received some reward, such as part of the outcome of the successful litigation. The vice was stirring up litigation, oppressing others and creating an incentive to tamper with evidence.
Over time, however, Australian jurisdictions abolished the prohibition.
Access to justice, including the ability to raise a defence, is often costly in Australia because of legal fees and the loser pays system. Many litigants need financial help to bring or defend litigation.
Indeed, Australia now allows third-party litigation funding where a corporate entity funds the proceedings in return for a share of the recovery, as is commonly used in class actions and insolvency cases.
While bankrolling of civil litigation is now business as usual, it is not entirely unregulated. The courts have power to prevent an “abuse of process”, typically through permanently halting proceedings.
An abuse of process typically arises where the use of the court’s procedures unjustifiably negatively affects a party, or where it serves to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
If a funder repeatedly supported unmeritorious claims or defences, or misused court procedures, then the courts can step in, but this is a high bar.
As a result, the main response to third parties financing litigation is to seek costs from them when the unsuccessful party cannot pay. Deeming will need to pursue this through the court.
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.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 6, 2025.
Defections are fairly common in Australian politics. But history shows they are rarely a good career move Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University For many years now, Australian political scientists have pointed out that that established partisan allegiance is in decline. In 1967, 36% of Coalition supporters and 32% of Labor voters reported lifetime voting
Spit or swallow? What’s the best way to deal with phlegm? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niall Johnston, Conjoint Associate Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney Pop Paul-Catalin/Shutterstock A spitting pot I consider as an essential part of the bed-room apparatus. That’s what French physician René Laennec wrote in 1821. Laennec, who invented the stethoscope, spent his days gazing at his patients’ phlegm.
Australia is in the firing line of Trump’s looming ‘revenge tax’. It’s a fight we’re unlikely to win Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Cooper, Professor of Taxation Law, University of Sydney Alexey_Arz/Shutterstock The Australian Labor Party just won an election victory for the ages. Now, it may be forced to walk back one of the key achievements of its first term. Here’s why: United States President Donald Trump is
‘HIV shouldn’t be death sentence in Fiji’ – call for testing amid outbreak By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor Fiji’s Minister for Health and Medical Services has revealed the latest HIV numbers in the country to a development partner roundtable discussing the national response. The minister reported 490 new HIV cases between October and December last year, bringing the 2024 total to 1583. “Included in this number
E-bikes and e-scooters are popular – but dangerous. A transport expert explains how to make them safer Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Rose, Professor in Transport Engineering, Monash Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University nazar_ab/Getty Last weekend a pedestrian in Perth tragically died after being struck by an e-scooter. This followed the death of another person in Victoria last month who was hit and killed by a modified
‘There are too many unpleasant things in life without creating more’: why Impressionism is the world’s favourite art movement Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sasha Grishin, Adjunct Professor of Art History, Australian National University Installation view of French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston on display from June 6 to October 5, at NGV International, Melbourne. Photo: Sean Fennessy Impressionism is the world’s favourite art movement. Impressionist paintings create
‘Deadly’ sports diplomacy: why Australia’s Indigenous people must be a part of our sports strategy Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Murray, Associate Professor, International Relations and Diplomacy, Bond University Sean Garnsworthy/ALLSPORT Since coming to power in 2022, the Albanese government has focused strongly on the Indo-Pacific. The prime minister’s recent trip to Indonesia was the latest high-level bilateral summit as Australia seeks to recalibrate relationships, enhance
Making it easier to build a granny flat makes sense – but it’s no solution to a housing crisis Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau RyanJLane/Getty Images As part of its resource management reforms, the government will soon allow “super-sized granny flats” to be built without consent – potentially adding 13,000 dwellings over the next decade to provide “families
Is black mould really as bad for us as we think? A toxicologist explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide Peeradontax/Shutterstock Mould in houses is unsightly and may cause unpleasant odours. More important though, mould has been linked to a range of health effects – especially triggering asthma. However, is mould exposure linked to a serious lung disease
Resident-to-resident aggression is common in nursing homes. Here’s how we can improve residents’ safety Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Ibrahim, Professor, Aged Care Medical Research Australian Centre for Evidence Based Aged Care, La Trobe University Wbmul/Shutterstock The Coroners Court of Victoria is undertaking an inquest into the deaths of eight aged care residents across six facilities, over a nine-month period in 2021. Each death occurred
We tracked 13,000 giants of the ocean over 30 years, to uncover their hidden highways Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ana M. M. Sequeira, Associate Professor, Research School of Biology, Australian National University Alexandra Vautin, Shutterstock Big animals of the ocean go about their days mostly hidden from view. Scientists know this marine megafauna – such as whales, sharks, seal, turtles and birds – travel vast distances
‘No one knew what was happening’: new research shows how domestic violence harms young people’s schooling Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Roberts, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Monash University Taiki Ishikawa/ Unsplash, CC BY Every school around Australia is almost certain to have students who are victim-survivors of family and domestic violence. The 2023 Australian Child Maltreatment Study found neglect and physical, sexual and emotional abuse
Internal tensions throw PNG anti-corruption body into crisis By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent Three staffers from Papua New Guinea’s peak anti-corruption body are embroiled in a standoff that has brought into question the integrity of the organisation. Police Commissioner David Manning has confirmed that he received a formal complaint. Commissioner Manning said that initial inquiries were underway to inform the “sensitive
Tasmania could go to an election just 16 months after its last one. What’s going on? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania Tasmania’s Liberal government and its premier, Jeremy Rockliff, have come under huge pressure since the state budget was handed down last week. It’s culminated in the Tasmanian House of Assembly voting to pass a motion of no
Grattan on Friday: Albanese will need some nuance in facing a female opposition leader Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese loves a trophy, especially a human one. He prides himself on his various “captain’s pick” candidates – good campaigners he has steered into seats. Way back in the Gillard days, he was key in persuading discontented Liberal Peter
Punishment for Te Pāti Māori over Treaty haka stands – but MPs ‘will not be silenced’ RNZ News Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament has confirmed the unprecedented punishments proposed for opposition indigenous Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in protest against the Treaty Principles Bill. Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be suspended for 21 days, and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for seven days, taking effect
Virgin Australia is coming back to the share market. Here’s what this new chapter could mean Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rico Merkert, Professor in Transport and Supply Chain Management and Deputy Director, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS), University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney Petr Podrouzek/Shutterstock It is finally happening. After five years of being a private company, Virgin Australia will relist on the
GPs asking men about their behaviour in relationships could help reduce domestic violence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelsey Hegarty, Professor of Family Violence Prevention, The University of Melbourne Domestic violence is increasing in Australia. A new report shows one in three men have ever made a partner feel frightened or anxious. One in 11 have used physical violence when angry. And one in 50
The Top End’s tropical savannas are a natural wonder – but weak environment laws mean their future is uncertain Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University François Brassard The Top End of Australia’s Northern Territory contains an extensive, awe-inspiring expanse of tropical savanna landscapes. It includes well-known and much-loved regions such as Darwin, Kakadu National Park, Arnhem
The Australian Labor Party just won an election victory for the ages. Now, it may be forced to walk back one of the key achievements of its first term.
Here’s why: United States President Donald Trump is about to declare an income tax war on much of the world – and we Australians are not on the same side.
Over in the US, the “One Big Beautiful Bill act” – a tax and spending package worth trillions of dollars – has been passed by the House of Representatives. It’s now before the Senate for consideration.
Within it lies a new and highly controversial provision: Section 899. This increases various US tax rates payable by taxpayers from any country the US claims is maintaining an “unfair foreign tax” by five percentage points each year, up to an additional 20% loading.
Having been an integral part of an international effort to create a global 15% minimum tax, Australia now finds itself in the firing line of Trump’s “revenge tax” warfare – and it’s a fight we’re unlikely to win.
A global minimum tax rate
The origins of the looming income tax war started in 2013, when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its plan to stamp out “base erosion and profit shifting”.
This refers to a range of strategies often used by multinational companies to minimise the tax they pay, exploiting differences and gaps in the tax rules of different countries.
The OECD’s first attempt to tackle the problem was a collection of disparate measures directed not only at corporate tax avoidance, but also controlling tax poaching by national governments and “sweetheart deals” negotiated by tax officials.
Under both Labor and the Coalition, Australia was initially an enthusiastic backer of these attempts.
However, the project was not a widespread success. Many countries endorsed the final reports but, unlike Australia, few countries acted on them.
After the failure of this first project, the OECD tried again in 2019. This evolved to encompass two “pillars” to change the global tax rules.
Pillar one would give more tax to countries where a company’s customers are located. Pillar two is a minimum tax of 15% on (a version of) the accounting profits of the largest multinationals earned in each country where the multinational operates.
Labor picked up this project for the 2022 election, promising to support both pillars – and they honoured that promise.
US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on May 22. The Washington Post/Getty
Mixed success
Around the world, the two pillar project had mixed success. Pillar one was dead-on-arrival: most countries did nothing. But Australia and several other countries, mostly in Europe, implemented pillar two – the global minimum tax.
The OECD has always maintained the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project was a coalition of the willing, meant to rebalance the way income tax is allocated between producer and consumer countries, and rid the world of tax havens.
In the US, Republicans did not share that view. For them, BEPS was simply another attempt by foreign countries to get more tax from US companies.
This Republican dissatisfaction with the OECD is now on full display. On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an executive order, formally repudiating any OECD commitments the Biden administration might have given.
He also directed his officials to report on options for retaliatory measures the US could take against any foreign countries with income tax rules that are “extraterritorial” or “disproportionately affect American companies”.
Why Australia is so exposed
Australia could find itself in the firing line of Trump’s tax warfare on many fronts. And the US doesn’t lack firepower. Section 899 adds to a number of retaliatory tax provisions the US already had at its disposal.
The increased tax rates would affect Australian super funds and other investors earning dividends, rent, interest, royalties and other income from US companies.
Australian super funds in particular are heavily invested in US markets, which have outperformed local stocks in recent years.
It would also affect Australian managed funds owning land and infrastructure assets in the US, as well as Australian entities such as banks that carry on business in the US.
And there are other measures that would expose US subsidiaries of Australian companies to US higher tax.
The bill would even remove the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the governments of “offending” countries. Sovereign immunity refers to a tax exemption on returns that usually applies to governments. This means the Australian government itself could have to pay tax to the US.
There are concerns on Wall Street this will dampen demand for US government bonds from foreign governments, which are big buyers of US Treasuries. The argument may sway some in the Senate – but how many remains to be seen.
What Australia may need to do next
We may be incredulous that anyone would consider our tax system combative, but enacting the OECD pillar two was always known to be risky.
There are other, homegrown Australian tax measures that have drawn American ire.
In 2015, Australia enacted an income tax measure (commonly called the “Google tax”) specifically directed at US tech companies. In 2017, we followed this up with a diverted profits tax. Trump’s bill specifically targets both measures.
Tying ourselves to the OECD’s global minimum tax project might have seemed like a good idea in 2019. In 2025, it looks decidedly unappealing, and not just because of Trump.
First, there is not actually any serious revenue in pillar two for Australia. Treasury’s revenue estimate totalled only $360 million after four years, just slightly more than a rounding error in the federal budget.
Second, we are increasingly alone and vulnerable in this battle. It might feel emotionally satisfying to stand up to the US. If there was a sizeable coalition alongside us, there might be some point.
If Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill act does pass through the US Senate, the Australian government and business will be left exposed to much higher costs.
Since abandoning the US market is not really an option, it might be time to surrender quietly and gracefully – by reversing, at the very least, the contentious bits of pillar two.
Graeme Cooper 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.
A spitting pot I consider as an essential part of the bed-room apparatus.
That’s what French physician René Laennec wrote in 1821. Laennec, who invented the stethoscope, spent his days gazing at his patients’ phlegm. In the days before x-rays and blood tests, phlegm was considered a valuable diagnostic tool.
Today, most of us don’t carry around a spitting pot. But a persistent question remains, especially during winter, when noses are dripping and chests are rattling.
When you have a cough, should you spit out phlegm or is it better to swallow it?
It might feel like an odd or even slightly stomach-churning topic, but it’s a remarkably common question patients ask doctors.
What is phlegm?
Phlegm, also known as sputum, is the thick, sticky mucus your lungs and windpipe make. This acts as a defensive barrier to protect them.
Its main ingredients are mucins – large, sugar-coated proteins that trap viruses, bacteria, allergens and dust. These mucins also regulate inflammation and the body’s immune response to bacteria and viruses.
We most commonly see phlegm with viral illness during winter. But phlegm is also evident in other medical conditions including asthma and allergies, bacterial infections, such as sinusitis, or with smoking or exposure to air pollution.
In fact, we’re always making phlegm, even when we are healthy. Cells in the lungs secrete mucus to keep surfaces moist and trap irritants. When we encounter something potentially harmful, such as a virus or allergen, immune cells detect the threat and release signals that tell mucus-producing cells to step up their game.
This extra mucus helps trap the invader and move it out of the lungs. Tiny hairs lining the airways (called cilia) then sweep the mucus up to the throat, where we cough it out or swallow it.
These tiny hairs, or cilia, sweep phlegm up to your throat. Sakurra/Shutterstock
The case for spitting
Some people feel better if they spit out phlegm, especially if the phlegm is thick, sticky or irritates the throat.
Spitting also lets you see what’s coming up. If phlegm contains blood, for example, it is important to see a doctor to exclude a more serious underlying illness, such as tuberculosis or cancer.
If you do spit out, do so into a tissue and throw it in the bin. Wash your hands afterwards. This reduces the risk of spreading infection to others via respiratory droplets or contaminated surfaces.
However, spitting out phlegm isn’t always practical, or polite. And for most viral infections, it doesn’t help you get better any faster than swallowing. The aim is to remove phlegm from the lungs, which occurs with either method.
Spitting is also not feasible for young children, who haven’t yet developed the coordination to do so effectively. They’ll generally swallow their phlegm.
How mucus keeps us healthy all year round, even if we’re not sick.
The case for swallowing
It might not sound particularly appealing, but swallowing phlegm is a normal process, and harmless. In fact, we often swallow phlegm without realising it.
The lungs generate about 50 millilitres of phlegm daily. It goes unnoticed because it’s thin, blends with saliva and we continuously swallow it. We only become aware of it when it thickens, such as during a viral infection.
After you swallow phlegm, it travels to the stomach, where acid and enzymes break it down, along with any germs it carries.
Swallowing phlegm doesn’t “recycle” the germs, and it won’t result in the infection spreading elsewhere.
In fact, swallowing viruses can even help build immunity. Once inside the gut, immune cells begin to recognise pieces of the virus and start preparing the body to respond more effectively to it in the future. Some important immunisations, such as the oral polio vaccine, work through this very mechanism.
So, what’s the verdict?
Whether you spit or swallow phlegm, both are safe. Spitting can help some people feel better, especially if their cough is associated with thick phlegm that’s causing distress.
But for most healthy people, there’s no need to force a cough or spit out phlegm. Swallowing phlegm is completely safe. And in young children, it’s the only feasible option.
In the end, it won’t matter if you spit or swallow your phlegm this winter. So choose what feels right (and least icky) for you.
Phoebe Williams receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, and the Gates Foundation.
Niall Johnston 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.
Infants born very preterm spend weeks or even months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) while their immature brains are still developing.
During this time, they receive up to 16 painful procedures every day. The most common is a routine heel prick used to collect a blood sample. Suctioning of the infant’s airways is also common.
While many of these procedures provide critical care, we know they are acutely painful. Even tearing tape off the skin can be painful.
The commonest strategy to manage acute pain in preterm babies is to give them sucrose, a sugar solution. But my recent research with Canadian colleagues shows this doesn’t stop these long-term impacts.
In New Zealand, there is no requirement to document all procedures or pain treatments. But as the findings from our Canadian study show, we urgently need research to improve long-term health outcomes for children born prematurely.
Long-term effects of pain in early life
We collected data on the number of procedures, clinical exposures and sucrose doses from three NICUs across Canada.
One of these sites does not use sucrose for acute pain management. This meant we were able to compare outcomes for children who received sucrose during their NICU stay and those who did not, without having to randomly assign infants to different care as you would in a randomised controlled trial – the gold standard approach.
At 18 months of age, when children born preterm are typically seen for a follow-up, parents report on their child’s behaviour. Our findings replicate earlier research: very preterm babies who were exposed to painful procedures early in life showed more anxiety and depressive symptoms by toddlerhood.
Our findings are similar regarding a child’s cognition and language, backing results from other studies. We found no link between preterm babies’ later behaviour and how much sucrose they were given to manage pain.
The sweet taste of sucrose is thought to alleviate pain because it leads to the release of endorphins. It has become the worldwide standard of care for acute neonatal pain, but it doesn’t seem to be helping in the long term.
As is the case internationally, sucrose is used widely in New Zealand, but there is considerable variation in protocols of use across hospitals. No national guidelines for best practice exist.
Pain management guidelines also help, but whether these changes improve outcomes in the long term, we don’t know yet.
We do know there are other ways of treating neonatal pain and minimising long-term impacts. Placing a newborn on a parent’s bare chest, skin-to-skin, effectively reduces short and long-term effects of neonatal pain.
For times when whānau are not able to be in the NICU, we have limited evidence that other pain management strategies, such as expressed breast milk, are effective. Our recent research cements this: sucrose isn’t helping as we thought.
Understanding which pain management strategies should be used for short and long-term benefits of this vulnerable population could make a big difference in the lives of these babies.
This requires additional research and a different approach, while considering what is culturally acceptable in Aotearoa New Zealand. If the strategies we are currently using aren’t working, we need to think creatively about how to limit the impact of pain on children born prematurely.
Mia Mclean 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 Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
For many years now, Australian political scientists have pointed out that that established partisan allegiance is in decline. In 1967, 36% of Coalition supporters and 32% of Labor voters reported lifetime voting for their side. At the 2022 election, the Australian Election Study found the figures to be 16% and 12%.
These changes help to explain the rising support for independents and minor parties at federal elections; they now take about a third of the primary vote.
So much for voters. What about for politicians? Of course, there have always been plenty of parliamentarians who had an earlier stint as a member of some other party before landing in the one that sent them into parliament. Brendan Nelson was in the Labor Party before he was Liberal. John Gorton was Country Party before he was Liberal. Adam Bandt was Labor before he was Green. And so on. We are all entitled to change our minds, even if switching political parties was once closer to changing football teams – a habit that immediately arouses suspicion in a sports-loving nation.
Senator Dorinda Cox’s switch from the Greens to the Labor Party was apparently a homecoming, according to Cox. She was once a Labor Party member, she said. Last week, she was criticising the party over its approval of Woodside’s Northwest Shelf gas project. This week, she finds Labor’s values aligned with her own.
Of course, her defection has been accompanied by a steady leaking of little details of her Greens career, such as an excoriation of the Labor Party, in her application to run for the Greens, when she said the ALP patronised “women and people of colour” and cared more about its donors than members.
That’s politics, but it’s a democratic deficit that senators elected as part of a Senate team, in a system that has facilitated above-the-line voting since 1984, can sit for years afterwards in the parliament as a member of another party.
But good luck in getting up a constitutional change, via referendum, to change that.
Still, it is easy to understand how such nimbleness breeds cynicism about political parties. Another perspective might be that the fluidity of allegiance out in the electorate has come to inhabit the political class itself.
All the same, defections from one party to another are quite rare these days in federal politics, at least after one is sitting in parliament. But defections from a party to sit as an independent are not and some, such as Bob Katter, have managed to build successful political careers outside the parties.
One who did not was was Julia Banks, the Liberal member for Chisholm, who announced she would not be seeking re-election and then left the party for the crossbench in the wake of Scott Morrison’s ascension to the leadership in 2018. Banks complained of bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party and the wider parliament, and wrote a book on her experiences. She subsequently failed to gain election as an independent in another seat.
There were several defectors in the last parliament. A House of Representatives crossbench that began at 16 had reached 19 by the end, with the defections of two Liberals (Russell Broadbent and Ian Goodenough, both after losing preselection) and one National, Andrew Gee, the latter over his party’s opposition to the Voice. Only Gee has lived politically to tell the tale, winning Calare as an Independent, as Peter Andren did before him.
Defections from minor and microparties are especially common, based as they often are on a high-profile leader and lacking traditions of party discipline or solid structures of organisational governance. Jacqui Lambie began as a Palmer United Party senator. Tammy Tyrrell began as a Jacqui Lambie Network senator.
The biggest “defection” in modern Australian politics was that of Cheryl Kernot from the Australian Democrats to the Labor Party in 1997. It is easy, over a quarter of a century on, and with the Australian Democrats no longer in the Australian parliament, to underestimate what a big deal this was at the time.
Kernot was a rock star of a politician, leader of the Australian Democrats, and a national celebrity. But there are significant differences with Cox beyond Kernot’s greater eminence. She resigned her Senate seat immediately and would win the marginal Brisbane seat of Dickson in the following year’s election. Then, in 2001, she would lose it to a young and ambitious former policeman named Peter Dutton.
The experience was ultimately an unhappy one for Kernot: she believed that having recruited her into the ranks, the Labor Party – and its leader, Kim Beazley, did not know how to make the best use of her. She was also on the receiving end of some relentlessly negative and sometimes intrusive media coverage. And by her own admission, she made mistakes. The story of her career’s unravelling is not straightforward. The role that gender played in it remains contentious.
Perhaps Kernot’s experience would alone be sufficient to prompt second thoughts in anyone seeking to jump ship. There are, of course, older prohibitions. In the Labor Party, a defector was known as a “rat”. Billy Hughes, the prime minister whose effort to introduce conscription in the first world war split the party, is the most famous of them.
“Rat” is not a word much heard these days, but it was thrown around a bit when Senator Fatima Payman defected in 2024, and applied more seriously in 1996 to Labor Senator Mal Colston when he resigned from the Labor Party in exchange for the deputy presidency of the Senate.
The best historical example of a defection being good for your career is that of Joe Lyons, who ratted on Labor in 1931 to lead a new party called the United Australia Party, a switch engineered by a small group of influential businessmen.
The circumstances – the Great Depression, real fear of civil violence, and the disintegration of a federal Labor government – were highly unusual.
More commonly, defection is a bad career move. Most of the Labor politicians who went over to the breakaway anti-communist Democratic Labor Party (DLP) in the mid-1950s found themselves out of parliament and looking for a new job. Stan Keon, one of those flying high ahead of the split, even occasionally mentioned – unrealistically – as a possible future prime minister, would run a Melbourne wine shop. Others, such as Vince Gair, Queensland Labor premier, lived to fight another day as a DLP senator (and ambassador to Ireland).
Cox has three years left of her senate term. After that, she will be at the mercy of the Labor Party. Labor won three Senate seats at the 2022 half-Senate election in Western Australia and perhaps it could do so again. On that occasion, in a surprise victory, the third place went to the young up-and-coming union organiser, Fatima Payman.
Frank Bongiorno 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.
Fiji’s Minister for Health and Medical Services has revealed the latest HIV numbers in the country to a development partner roundtable discussing the national response.
The minister reported 490 new HIV cases between October and December last year, bringing the 2024 total to 1583.
“Included in this number are 32 newborns diagnosed with HIV acquired through mother-to-child transmission,” Dr Atonio Rabici Lalabalavu said.
Fiji declared an outbreak of the disease in January. The Fiji Sun reported around 115 HIV-related deaths in the January-September 2024 period.
Fiji’s Central Division reported 1100 new cases in 2024, with 427 in the Western Division and 50 in the Northern Division.
Of the newly recorded cases, less than half — 770 — have been successfully linked to care, of which 711 have been commenced on antiretroviral therapy (ART).
Just over half were aged in their twenties, and 70 percent of cases were male.
Increase in TB, HIV co-infection Dr Lalabalavu said the increase in HIV cases was also seeing an increase in tuberculosis and HIV co-infection, with 160 individuals in a year.
He said the ministry strongly encouraged individuals to get tested, know their status, and if it was positive, seek treatment.
Fiji Minister for Health and Medical Services Dr Atonio Lalabalavu . . . strongly encourages individuals to get tested. Image: Ministry of Health & Medical Services/FB/RNZ Pacific
And if it is negative, to maintain that negative status.
“I will reiterate what I have said before to all Fijians – HIV should not be a death sentence in Fiji,” he said.
In the Western Pacific, the estimated number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) reached 1.9 million in 2020, up from 1.4 million in 2010.
At the time, the World Health Organisation said that over the previous two decades, HIV prevalence in the Western Pacific had remained low at 0.1 percent.
However, the low prevalence in the general population masked high levels of HIV infection among key populations.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Installation view of French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston on display from June 6 to October 5, at NGV International, Melbourne. Photo: Sean Fennessy
Impressionism is the world’s favourite art movement.
Impressionist paintings create an oasis of beauty into which a viewer can escape from a sometimes dark and troubling world, or simply from the mundane boredom of urban living.
The Impressionist master, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, once famously observed:
To my mind, a picture should be something pleasant, cheerful, and pretty. Yes, pretty! There are too many unpleasant things in life as it is without creating still more of them.
The new Impressionism exhibition at the National Gallery of Victory brings together over a 100 of these pleasant, cheerful and pretty paintings and graphics. It features some of the greatest names in French Impressionism, including Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Edgar Degas, Camille Pissarro, Édouard Manet, Mary Cassatt, Berthe Morisot, Paul Signac and Alfred Sisley.
Initially, the Impressionist painters had difficulty in selling their work amid the torrent of negative criticism.
But then their Parisian art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel established a gallery in New York City, and the American artist Mary Cassatt – who worked with the Impressionists in Paris – found increasing popularity. By the 1880s and 1890s, American collectors started to buy Impressionist paintings by many of the top French artists.
This explains why the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston possesses such an outstanding collection of Impressionist paintings. Yet, unlike the museums in New York, the Boston museum is less well known and Australians are seeing many of these paintings for the first time.
To say that most works in this exhibition have never been previously seen in Australia is only partially true. Four years ago, just before Melbourne was locked down for COVID, the NGV launched a similar show. Apart from a handful of art lovers posing as media, that show expired under lockdown and was packed up and returned to Boston without being widely exposed to Australian audiences.
The new reiteration is supplemented with six additional paintings, including the early and deeply moving painting by Degas of Degas’s Father Listening to Lorenzo Pagans Playing the Guitar (1869–72).
Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, Degas’s Father Listening to Lorenzo Pagans Playing the Guitar, about 1869–72. Museum of Fine Arts Boston
The whole exhibition has been totally reimagined as part of an immersive interior design. It moves far away from the clinical white cube of a modern exhibition space and closer to the 19th century posh domestic interiors in which the paintings first appeared.
An extensive and in-depth exhibition
Chronologically, the exhibition charts the development of French Impressionism from the mid-19th century and the so-called Barbizon school and realism, through to late Impressionism in the early 20th century.
It includes the great paintings by Cézanne and Manet, and memorable paintings from early to late Impressionism. There is an abundance of important works by the main Impressionist masters including Monet (16 of his canvases in one room), Degas, Sisley, Renoir, Pissarro, Cassatt and Morisot, and a few unexpected gems by van Gogh and Signac.
Installation view of French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston on display from June 6 to October 5, at NGV International, Melbourne. Photo: Sean Fennessy
It is an extensive and in-depth exhibition.
The depth of the Boston collection enables rare insights. For example, when we see Édouard Manet’s Street Singer (1862), we may be aware that he employed his favourite model Victorine Meurent. Apart from being a model, Meurent was also an artist in her own right and in the same exhibition there is a self-portrait of her from 1876.
Strictly speaking, perhaps neither painting can be described as “Impressionist”. But it is a wonderful encounter of a woman being observed and, in the same exhibition, this woman looking out of the picture space and doing the observing. The self-portrait is one of those additions that was not in the original show.
If we glance at a handful of some of the outstanding paintings in the show – including Monet’s Grainstack (snow effect) (1891), The water lily pond (1900), or Water lilies (1905); Renoir’s Dance at Bougival (1883) or The Seine at Chatou (1881); Pissarro’s Spring pasture (1889); Degas’s Racehorses at Longchamp (1871/1874); and Morisot’s Embroidery (1889) – we have all of the beloved features of French Impressionism.
While the French Impressionists were not a monolithic group, their art was generally characterised by three things.
Firstly, a lighter and brighter palette with a conscious move to the ultraviolet end of the colour spectrum.
Secondly, a divisionist application of colour with juxtaposed dabs of pigment allowing for colour to blend in the eye rather than on a mirror-smooth surface of the canvas.
Finally, a move to a more democratic subject matter with landscapes, gardens, drinking parties, picnics and street scenes easily outnumbering images of pagan gods in complicated embraces.
Australian audiences never seem to tire of French Impressionism. This exhibition brings a fresh crop of rarely seen major paintings and graphics of the highest order.
If you love Impressionism, French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, is a must-see exhibition. This new exhibition will change the history of Australian art exhibitions from Australia’s greatest Impressionist show that no one had seen, to Australia’s greatest Impressionist exhibition that everyone has seen.
French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, is at the National Gallery of Victoria until October 5.
Sasha Grishin 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.
This followed the death of another person in Victoria last month who was hit and killed by a modified e-bike which police alleged could travel at 90 kilometres per hour.
A study published earlier this week also found nearly 180 e-scooter injuries in young people aged five to 15 at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital in 2023 and 2024. One in ten injuries were life-threatening or potentially life-threatening.
For these risks to be properly addressed, an overhaul of regulations covering e-bikes and e-scooters is urgently needed.
All to do with power
E-bikes have a battery-powered motor to assist the rider. The key word there is “assist”: to be legal the rider has to be pedalling to get the power assistance.
E-scooters are a new variant of the once humble children’s kick scooter. They are more sturdy to support an adult rider, and the battery-powered motor provides all the power.
Some e-bikes and e-scooters have throttles, which enable riders to accelerate to higher speeds without pedalling. Technically, these are illegal.
These new forms of urban transport are surging in popularity. This year alone, about 150,000 e-bikes are forecast to be sold across the country. An estimated 350,000 Australians – about 1.3% of the population – owned an e-scooter in 2024.
Regulations governing e-bikes and e-scooters were historically designed with reference to the power required to ride a regular bicycle.
A person needs to provide power equal to 220 watts to propel a regular bicycle at 32km/h on a flat road without a headwind.
The figure of 250 watts emerged as the baseline in Europe for the power limit on e-bikes. It is 500 watts in Canada and 750 watts in the United States.
The regulations specify that power-assisted e-bikes can have a motor up to 250 watts. But the rider must pedal to get the power assistance and it must cut out above 25km/h.
E-bikes can travel faster than 25km/h. But the rider has to be providing all the power above that speed.
The same power limit was applied to e-scooters. But given their design and smaller wheels, regulators in Australia were more conservative, specifying a 20km/h maximum speed.
There are two main problems with the existing system of regulations. First, there is nothing to stop the import of high-performance e-bikes and e-scooters from overseas. Second, enforcement is difficult and rarely occurs, because the police don’t have the equipment to easily test motor power.
The federal government has a clear role to play in stemming the import of e-bikes and e-scooters that exceed the legal limits for public use in Australia.
However there is no evidence the government has engaged with the issue. This is inconsistent with its commitment to the National Road Safety Strategy and the approach taken to the management of vehicle safety and import regulations which apply to motor vehicles.
State and territory governments must revise and simplify their e-bike and e-scooter regulations.
Tasmania is on the front foot with its review of e-bike regulations. But e-scooter regulations also need reform – to make them easier for the public to understand, to ensure these devices offer a viable travel option for people and, importantly, to enable efficient enforcement.
Local government and road authorities should have the power to set speed limits for e-bike and e-scooter riders on shared paths. Cromo Digital/Shutterstock
A few changes to the rules could then make a big difference.
For a start, references to motor power should be removed because the severity of a crash depends on speed not the power of the device. Having the regulations framed in terms of power is a complication for enforcement and we don’t use it to regulate motor vehicles.
Then we need to focus on where, and how fast, these vehicles can be ridden.
A good first step would be to follow the lead of Queensland and Tasmania and legalise footpath riding, subject to a 12km/h or 15km/h speed limit as is the case in those states.
Restricting e-scooters to low-speed roads (up to 50km/h), and with a lower speed limit when ridden on the footpath, would minimise the risk of dangerous collisions with pedestrians and reduce the risk of dangerous collisions with cars on high-speed roads.
Specifying a max speed under power assistance for e-bikes of 32km/h would bring us in line with the regulations for countries that have cities similar to Australia’s such as Canada and New Zealand.
This would open our market to more models from overseas. It would also ensure e-bikes are better able to keep up with traffic when ridden on roads and are more competitive in terms of travel time relative to the car, to help further reduce car use.
When it comes to e-scooters, moving to a 25km/h speed limit (as is the case in Queensland), combined with restricting their use to roads of up to 50km/h, would improve their compatibility with the flow of motor vehicles on local streets.
Local government and road authorities should also have the power to declare areas where footpath riding is not permitted – for example, inner-city footpaths with heavy pedestrian activity. They should also have the power to set speed limits for riders on shared paths and bicycle lanes where there is likely to be interaction with pedestrians.
With those changes in place, police would be able to enforce displayed speed limits for e-bikes and e-scooters using radar guns, as is already done in Queensland, and issue fines where appropriate.
Geoff Rose has received in-kind support for his research, in the form of data, from shared e-scooter operating companies; he has served on the oversight panel for the Victorian Government’s shared e-scooter trial and he has consulted to the Tasmanian Department of State Growth on e-bike regulations.
The 2023 Australian Child Maltreatment Study found neglect and physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children is widespread. Among Australians aged 16–65 years, 32% experienced physical abuse, 28.5% experienced sexual abuse, 39% experienced emotional abuse and 9% had been neglected during their childhoods.
As the place where children spend the bulk of their time outside home, schools could be an important source of help and support. But are they equipped to do this?
Our research, published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues, explores the impact of domestic and family violence on young people’s education. Our findings show just how significant the disruption to a young person’s education can be, including how safe or supported they feel at school.
Our study
Our study draws on data from the Adolescent Family Violence in Australia project. This is a national survey of more than 5,000 young Australians aged 16–20 years old. We focused on a subset of 1,651 respondents who had experienced domestic and family violence, either by experiencing violence between other family members or being directly subjected to it.
The survey asked both structured and open-ended questions to explore the impacts of domestic and family violence.
Family violence disrupts school attendance and participation
Our study showed family violence has a significant impact on school attendance. Young people told us they missed classes or dropped out of school during their experiences of violence.
For some young people, attending school while coping with trauma, fear and instability at home was too overwhelming.
A 19-year-old woman shared how she became so anxious in the presence of teachers and other authority figures she could only manage one day of school per week in a secluded setting.
Another young woman described missing classes regularly to care for her mother after violent episodes, while a 20-year-old man said he stayed home to protect his mother.
Even when young victims did attend school, the emotional toll of family violence often meant they were socially withdrawn. Some spoke about losing friends due to frequent house moves and school shifts, while others withdrew socially because of anxiety and trauma. One 17-year-old explained:
I don’t talk a lot to male teachers and don’t really have close friendships with girls at my school, so I tend to stay home.
Some participants described school as a safe haven away from their abusive home. But even in these cases, learning was often still difficult. One young person commented:
Yes, I wanted to go to school to get away from home, but felt very alone and isolated because no one knew what was happening.
Family violence and homework
The effects of family violence extend beyond the classroom. Many young people told us how the chaos, fear and emotional exhaustion of life at home made it difficult, if not impossible, to complete homework or study for exams. One young woman remarked:
I can’t do any homework at home because it’s not a safe environment for me.
Another young person described being kept up late listening to fighting or because of police visits, leaving them physically and emotionally exhausted in the morning.
In some cases, abusive parents directly prevented their child from attending school or doing homework. Other young people described not having access to the tools they needed, like a working computer or internet connection – sometimes withheld deliberately by a parent.
These accounts show how for some children experiencing family violence, learning at home is not just difficult, it is fundamentally unsafe.
Young people spoke of how domestic violence made it impossible to study at home. C.T.PHAT/Shutterstock, CC BY
A missed opportunity
It can be difficult for schools to fully understand and appreciate what’s happening for students at home.
Few of the young people we surveyed proactively disclosed their experiences to school staff, including teachers and counsellors. Disclosure rates ranged from just 12% to 17%, depending on the type of violence the young person reported experiencing.
For those young people who did disclose, their experiences varied. Some young people described school staff as a lifeline – listening without judgement, offering helpful information and taking action where needed.
Others described being ignored, dismissed or harmed further by insensitive responses. As one young person said, the “school counsellor told me I needed to understand dad’s behaviour and keep my head down”.
The help students received seemed to depend on the individual teacher or school counsellor, their knowledge and training. This inconsistency represents a major barrier to effective and early intervention.
What needs to change
As well as learning, schools can also provide safety, stability and healing. We need schools to be supported to provide more effective and consistent care for students experiencing family violence.
As other research has similarly found, responses need to be trauma-informed (recognising the impact of trauma on students) and student-centred (focusing on individuals’ needs). This involves:
providing trauma and domestic violence-informed training to all school staff
ensuring schools have clear processes to follow if a student disclosures domestic violence, including referrals to appropriate external supports
adopting flexible attendance and academic policies for young people impacted by domestic violence
building collaborative partnerships with community-based domestic violence and mental health services.
The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault. The Men’s Referral Service (1300 766 491) offers advice and counselling to men looking to change their behaviour.
Steven Roberts receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government and ANROWS, among others. He is a Board Director at Respect Victoria, but this article is written wholly separate from and does not represent that role.
Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.
Rebecca Stewart is a project officer at No to Violence. The views expressed in this article are her own.
Big animals of the ocean go about their days mostly hidden from view. Scientists know this marine megafauna – such as whales, sharks, seal, turtles and birds – travel vast distances to feed and breed.
But almost a third are now at risk of extinction due largely to fishing, shipping, pollution and global warming.
Protecting them can be difficult, because we don’t often know where these animals are.
New research I led sought to shed light on the issue. My colleagues and I gathered 30 years of satellite tracking data to map hotspots of megafauna activity around the globe.
We tracked 12,794 animals from 111 species to find out where they go. The results reveal underwater “highways” where megafauna crisscross the global Ocean. They also show where megafauna dwell for feeding and breeding. Now we know where these special places are, we have a better chance of protecting them.
Satellite tracking reveals marine megafauna migration pathways and places of residence. Sequeira et al (2025) Science
Pulling all the data together: a mega task
For more than 30 years, marine biologists have tagged large animals in the sea with electronic devices and tracked their movements via satellite. The trackers capture data on everything from speed of travel, to direction of movement and where the animals spend most of their time.
I put a call out to the global research community to bring together the tracking data. I hoped it would help scientists better understand the animals’ movements and identify their favourite places.
Some 378 scientists from 50 countries responded. We assembled the world’s largest tracking dataset of marine megafauna. It includes species of flying birds, whales, fishes (mostly sharks), penguins, polar bears, seals, dugongs, manatees and turtles. They were tracked between 1985 and 2018, throughout the world’s oceans.
Ana Sequeira swimming with a whale shark in Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia, to collect samples. Australian Institute of Marine Science
Mapping reveals a lack of protection
When we started analysing the data, it showed the tagged animals used some parts of the ocean more frequently than others. Most of them travelled to the central Indian Ocean, northeast Pacific Ocean, Atlantic north, and waters around Mozambique and South Africa.
It’s likely this reflects a lack of data from elsewhere. However, these species are known to go to places where they are most likely to find food, so we expect some areas to be used more than others (including the areas we detected).
Currently only about 8% of the global ocean is protected. And only 5% of the important marine megafauna areas we identified occur within these existing marine protected areas.
This leaves all of the other important marine megafauna areas we identified unprotected. In other words, the species using those areas are likely to suffer harm from human activities taking place at sea.
More than 90% of the important marine megafauna areas we identified are exposed to high plastic pollution, shipping traffic or to intensifying global warming. And about 75% are exposed to industrial fishing.
We also found marine megafauna tend to spend most of their time within exclusive economic zones. This area lies beyond the territorial sea or belt of water 12 nautical miles from the coast of each country, extending 200 nautical miles from shore. The presence of megafauna in these exclusive economic zones means individual countries could increase the protection afforded within their jurisdictions.
About 40% of the important marine megafauna areas were located in these zones. But about 60% were on the high seas.
The future of marine megafauna conservation
The High Seas Treaty, recently adopted by the United Nations and signed by 115 countries, governs the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological biodiversity on the open ocean.
Working alongside this treaty, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to protect 30% of the global ocean by 2030. This presents an opportunity to ensure important marine megafauna areas are well represented.
We used an optimisation algorithm to identify the best areas to protect, when it comes to marine megafauna. We gave priority to areas that are potentially used for feeding, breeding, resting and migrating across all the different species.
But even if important marine megafauna areas are selected when 30% of the ocean is protected, about 60% of these areas would still stay unprotected.
Significant risks from human activities will remain. Management efforts must also focus on reducing harm from fishing and shipping. Fighting climate change and cutting down noise and plastic pollution should also be key priorities.
Like for most megafauna on land, the reign of marine megafauna might come to an end if humanity does not afford these species greater protection.
Ana M. M. Sequeira receives funding from the Australian Research Council and a Pew Marine Fellowship from the Pew Charitable Trusts. She is also affiliated with the University of Western Australia.
