Every day the Gaza holocaust continues, the Western empire tells the truth about itself.
The US government is telling you the truth about itself.
Israel is telling you the truth about itself.
Their Western allies are telling you the truth about themselves.
The Western media are telling you the truth about themselves.
One of the most important stages when preparing to leave an abusive relationship is the information-gathering stage. This is when you begin quietly observing and making note of your partner’s abusive behaviour, letting them tell you the truth about themselves with their actions rather than their words.
The information-gathering stage is important because long-term abusive relationships are usually very confusing for the victim; if the abuse were simple and easy to understand, the relationship wouldn’t have continued into the long term.
Every day the Gaza holocaust continues . . . Video/audio: Caitlin Johnstone
It’s therefore often helpful to cultivate a clear understanding of the lay of the land before trying to navigate your way out of it, especially if your abuser is particularly manipulative and adept at confusing you. This ensures that you will be able to view their manipulations with distrust, so you won’t get sucked in by them.
As infuriating as it is to watch this genocide drag out month after bloody month, it would be a mistake to believe everyone is just passively witnessing it all.
If you watched someone you love in the information-gathering stage prior to leaving an abusive relationship, you might get frustrated by what appears to be inertia and passivity on their part when what you want to see is them sprinting for the door with a suitcase. But they’re not inert or passive — they’re gathering information.
Westerners are in a psychologically abusive relationship with the empire. Our minds are hammered with propaganda indoctrination from as soon as we are old enough to start learning about our world to ensure our compliance with the power structure that rules over us.
It happens in school. It happens with the mass media. It happens with the Silicon Valley platforms we look to for information.
And it gets confusing. All the information about our world and our place in it is distorted by mass-scale psychological manipulation for the benefit of the powerful. It’s hard for someone who’s been raised in such an environment to navigate their mind out of its indoctrination. It’s hard to know the truth.
But in Gaza, the empire is telling us the truth. It’s exposing itself in all its naked loathsomeness.
“Hamas says,” as if we haven’t seen the footage or someone else is bombing hospitals in Gaza… https://t.co/lZfEWCJcqZ
Our rulers work to censor, silence, marginalise and deport anyone who criticises their criminality.
We do not live in a free society that is guided by truth and morality. We live under the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on the face of this planet. And we should distrust everything about it.
That’s what they’re showing us with the Gaza holocaust. More and more people are opening their eyes to it every day.
And when enough eyes open, leaving the abusive relationship once and for all becomes a real possibility.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape has survived a motion of no confidence against him in Parliament.
During the proceedings, livestreamed on EMTV, Speaker Job Pomat announced the results of the vote as 16 votes in favour and 89 against.
In moving the motion, the member for Abau, Sir Puka Temu, nominated Sir Peter Ipatas as an alternative prime minister to Marape, and said the motion was moved on principle.
“This is not a vote of ambition, it is a vote of accountability, it is a vote of conscience. Mr Speaker what is the role of government if not to uplift its people,” Sir Puka said.
The seconder of the motion, Wabag Open MP Lino Tom acknowledged the government’s superior numbers, but said the opposition were acting in the interest of the people and challenged Marape to address them on the floor.
“He needs to tell the people because he is the chief accountable officer of this country,” Tom said.
“He can no longer blame his incompetent ministers. He can no longer blame any other person here on this floor.”
Speaker put question The Speaker then went to immediately put the question, provoking the ire of the opposition bench with Madang MP Bryan Kramer accusing him of acting contrary to the Supreme Court order that had the House resume to hear the motion, which had initially been denied by the Parliament’s private business committee.
“Mr Speaker must be consistent with the privileges and the spirit and intent of the constitution that provide every member the opportunity to debate,” he said.
“This is a court order if you entertain this motion of ‘question be put’ then there will be contempt proceedings.”
Despite multiple points of order from the opposition calling for the motion to be debated, Pomat proceeded to put the question and the results were overwhelmingly Marape’s favour.
“Those in favour of this motion are 16 and those who are not in favour of this motion and who want the Honourable Member for Tari Pori, Honourable James Marape, to remain as prime minister are 89.”
After the vote, Marape moved a motion to address the movers of the motion, and spoke at length about the achievements of his government, while throwing jabs at the opposition MPs, many of who had served as ministers in his government at different times.
He finished by thanking all who supported him in today’s leadership challenge.
Thanks to members “I want to say thank you for members on both sides of the House for your participation today.
“A sincere thank you to the 89 on their feet, who stood up to vote and I want to say thank you as your chief servant.
“I will try my absolute best to continue on leaving no place and no one behind as the ultimate aim of this government and should be for any government going forward into the future.”
The nominated challenger, Sir Peter, also rose to thank the opposition for nominating him, and to all the people of Papua New Guinea who reached out to him with messages of support.
He said he only accepted the nomination because so many MPs had complained about the prime minister’s performance.
Sir Ipatas challenged government MPs to stop bickering and gossiping about James Marape behind his back.
“As he rightly said, he is putting his time and effort into trying to make this country great,” he said.
Call to ‘not gossip’ “It is about our ministers and leaders and leaders of coalition partners not gossiping, but be open with the prime minister and talk about issues that we have for the country and for the people.
“This country belongs to all of us. Our people.”
Parliament is now adjourned until May 27.
Under new laws passed last month, Marape now has an 18-month reprieve from votes of no confidence.
With only two years left until the next election, RNZ Pacific understands this effectively gives him a clear run to the 2027 National General Election.
Several opposition MPs in Parliament on Tuesday urged Marape to make the most of the upcoming period of stability, and deliver some real results for Papua New Guineans.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
A news report that Russia has sought to base long-range aircraft in Indonesia caught Australia’s political leaders by surprise during an already hectic election campaign.
The military publication Janes reported on Tuesday that Russia had requested permission for its aircraft to be based at the Manuhua Air Force Base in Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua.
The base is just 1,300 kilometres away from Darwin.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles issued a statement denying the report, saying his Indonesian counterpart assured him there would be no Russian planes based in Indonesia. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was seeking “further clarification” with Jakarta about the Janes report.
Janes is a respected outlet when it comes to defence news, so it’s likely the Russians did float the idea, even if it might have been done at lower levels.
Why would Russia be cosying up to Indonesia?
Since Prabowo Subianto came to power as Indonesia’s new president last October, Moscow and Jakarta have sought to deepen their military ties. In fact, the two countries conducted their first-ever joint naval exercises a month after Prabowo took office.
But this isn’t a totally new strategy by Moscow, which has tried on numerous occasions to pivot to Asia to give itself more economic heft and leverage in the region.
The Kremlin is also cognisant that Europe won’t be a friend for the foreseeable future. As such, it’s even more pressing for Russia to establish itself as a player in the Indo-Pacific region – and with that comes a miltary and security presence.
About ten years ago, for instance, the Russian regime secured an agreement with Vietnam to allow its air force to refuel their aircraft at a former US base in the country. Russia also had interest in reestablishing a submarine base in Vietnam and has sold submarines to the country.
In addition, Moscow has sought to sell defence technology and fighter jets to Indonesia for some time, seeing it as a potentially lucrative market for Russian arms. Beyond defence, the bilateral relationship has also focused on energy and education.
These attempts to deepen Moscow-Jakarta ties form part of a targeted Russian campaign to boost its relationships with a number of Southeast Asian nations.
What about the timing?
If the Janes report is accurate, the timing of the purported approach from Russia would be interesting. The report said it came after a meeting between Sergei Shoigu (recently demoted from Russia’s defence minister to an inferior role as secretary of the Russian Security Council) and Indonesia’s defence minister in February of this year.
At the time, the United States was distracted by the first chaotic weeks of US President Donald Trump’s second term in office.
So, if Russia did make such a request, it would be highly opportunistic, especially given Jakarta has been keen to deepen ties with Moscow.
It is also noteworthy that Indonesia recently joined the BRICS, the group of rapidly emerging economies that also includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Russia, among others.
Even though both Canberra and Jakarta dismissed the report, there was good reason for Australia to be concerned.
Russia’s long-range aviation assets, notably the venerable Tu-95, which is used for reconnaissance as well as strategic bombing, can easily travel over 10,000 kilometres.
From a base in Indonesia, this would give the Russian air force the ability to conduct ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance) missions during Australian military exercises, gather data on military installations in the Northern Territory (which also host US Marines), and even conduct surveillance on US military activities in Guam.
Equally, given the closeness of ties between Beijing and Moscow, any Russian intelligence that was gathered could be shared with China.
The reported Russian military interest in Indonesia will also have irritated Australian foreign policy makers, especially since Canberra has invested significant diplomatic capital in boosting Australia-Indonesia ties.
Fortunately, the closeness of the relationship, which includes recently upgraded defence ties, will also have allowed for some plain speaking from Australian interlocutors.
They will doubtless have pointed out that agreeing to any such Kremlin request would cast significant doubt on Indonesian claims about non-alignment. It would also be viewed unfavourably by other regional actors, who have no interest in seeing an enhanced Russian military presence in the region.
The assurance from Jakarta that no Russian planes would be based in Indonesia is therefore a positive development.
But ultimately the reported Russian request is another example of the messy and fragmented world we now live in.
It highlights the reality that Australia will sometimes have to do business with partners who have friends we don’t like. Under those conditions, being firm on issues that threaten our national interests – like the prospective basing of military assets by a hostile power close to our shores – becomes all the more important.
Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.
Former US President Barack Obama has taken to social media to praise Harvard’s decision to stand up for academic freedom by rebuffing the Trump administration’s demands.
“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect,” Obama wrote in a post on X.
He called on other universities to follow the lead.
Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and… https://t.co/gAu9UUqgjF
Harvard will not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming, limit student protests over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, and submit to far-reaching federal audits in exchange for its federal funding, university president Alan M. Garber ’76 announced yesterday afternoon.
“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he wrote, reports the university’s Harvard Crimson news team.
The announcement comes two weeks after three federal agencies announced a review into roughly $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding and days after the Trump administration sent its initial demands, which included dismantling diversity programming, banning masks, and committing to “full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security.
Within hours of the announcement to reject the White House demands, the Trump administration paused $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard in a dramatic escalation in its crusade against the university.
More focused demands On Friday, the Trump administration had delivered a longer and more focused set of demands than the ones they had shared two weeks earlier.
It asked Harvard to “derecognise” pro-Palestine student groups, audit its academic programmes for viewpoint diversity, and expel students involved in an altercation at a 2023 pro-Palestine protest on the Harvard Business School campus.
It also asked Harvard to reform its admissions process for international students to screen for students “supportive of terrorism and anti-Semitism” — and immediately report international students to federal authorities if they break university conduct policies.
It called for “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship” and installing leaders committed to carrying out the administration’s demands.
And it asked the university to submit quarterly updates, beginning in June 2025, certifying its compliance.
Garber condemned the demands, calling them a “political ploy” disguised as an effort to address antisemitism on campus.
“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote.
“Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
The Harvard Crimson daily news, founded in 1873 . . . how it reported the universoity’s defiance of the Trump administration today. Image: HC screenshot APR
For a few hours on Tuesday afternoon, it seemed just possible the Russians might be sending their planes to a base very near us.
A claim on the military and intelligence site Janes that said the Russians were seeking to base several long range aircraft in Papua, a province of Indonesia, caused a massive flurry on the election trail.
It gave heart to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that national security might be brought into play as an election issue.
Dutton was quick to recall how in 2022 the Labor opposition jumped on the Morrison government for apparently being caught by surprise at what was going on in the Pacific, when a security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands turned into a campaign issue.
Had the Albanese government been caught unawares?
The Janes report said: “Jakarta has received an official request from Moscow, seeking permission for Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) aircraft to be based at a facility in Indonesia’s easternmost province.
“Separate sources from the Indonesian government have confirmed with Janes that the request was received by the office of Minister of Defence Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin following his meeting with Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu in February 2025.
“In the request, Russia seeks to base several long-range aircraft at the Manuhua Air Force Base, which shares a runway with the Frans Kaisiepo Airport, documents that have been presented to Janes reveal.
“The airbase is situated in Biak Numfor in the Indonesian province of Papua, and it is home to the Indonesian Air Force’s Aviation Squadron 27, which operates a fleet of CN235 surveillance aircraft.”
The government sought urgent clarification, while Dutton – now struggling in the polls – sought to score a quick political point without waiting for confirmation. Both government and opposition agreed on one thing, however: nobody wanted to see the Russians get such a foothold.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, “We are seeking further information, we obviously do not want to see Russian influence in our region, very clearly.”
“We have a good relationship with our friends in Indonesia, and we’re seeking further clarification.”
Dutton said it would be “a catastrophic failure of diplomatic relations if Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese didn’t have forewarning” about such a Russian move before it was made public.
“This is a very, very troubling development. The prime minister and the foreign affairs minister should have the depth of relationship with Indonesia to have had forewarning of this,” Dutton said.
“My message to President Putin is that he’s not welcome in our neighbourhood. We don’t share any values with President Putin, and we do not want a presence, a military presence, from Russia in our region, which would be destabilising for south-east Asia.”
Late Tuesday, the air went out of the balloon.
In a statement Defence Minister Richard Marles said, “I have spoken to my counterpart, HE Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin the Minister for Defence, and he has said to me in the clearest possible terms, reports of the prospect of Russian aircraft operating from Indonesia are simply not true”.
Earlier Marles said that last year Australia signed a defence cooperation agreement with Indonesia, “which really is the deepest level defence agreement we’ve ever had with Indonesia”.
“We are seeing increasing cooperation between Australia and Indonesia at a defence level.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This phrase, which sounds technical but is actually nonsense, has become a “digital fossil” – an error preserved and reinforced in artificial intelligence (AI) systems that is nearly impossible to remove from our knowledge repositories.
Like biological fossils trapped in rock, these digital artefacts may become permanent fixtures in our information ecosystem.
The case of vegetative electron microscopy offers a troubling glimpse into how AI systems can perpetuate and amplify errors throughout our collective knowledge.
A bad scan and an error in translation
Vegetative electron microscopy appears to have originated through a remarkable coincidence of unrelated errors.
First, twopapers from the 1950s, published in the journal Bacteriological Reviews, were scanned and digitised.
However, the digitising process erroneously combined “vegetative” from one column of text with “electron” from another. As a result, the phantom term was created.
Excerpts from scanned papers show how incorrectly parsed column breaks lead to the term ‘vegetative electron micro…’ being introduced. Bacteriological Reviews
Decades later, “vegetative electron microscopy” turned up in some Iranian scientific papers. In 2017 and 2019, two papers used the term in English captions and abstracts.
Vegetative electron microscopy began to appear more frequently in the 2020s. To find out why, we had to peer inside modern AI models – and do some archaeological digging through the vast layers of data they were trained on.
Empirical evidence of AI contamination
The large language models behind modern AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are “trained” on huge amounts of text to predict the likely next word in a sequence. The exact contents of a model’s training data are often a closely guarded secret.
To test whether a model “knew” about vegetative electron microscopy, we input snippets of the original papers to find out if the model would complete them with the nonsense term or more sensible alternatives.
The results were revealing. OpenAI’s GPT-3 consistently completed phrases with “vegetative electron microscopy”. Earlier models such as GPT-2 and BERT did not. This pattern helped us isolate when and where the contamination occurred.
We also found the error persists in later models including GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5. This suggests the nonsense term may now be permanently embedded in AI knowledge bases.
Screenshot of a command line program showing the term ‘vegetative electron microscopy’ being generated by GPT-3.5 (specifically, the model gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct). The top 17 most likely completions of the provided text are ‘vegetative electron microscopy’, and these suggestions are 2.2 times more likely than the next most likely prediction. OpenAI
By comparing what we know about the training datasets of different models, we identified the CommonCrawl dataset of scraped internet pages as the most likely vector where AI models first learned this term.
The scale problem
Finding errors of this sort is not easy. Fixing them may be almost impossible.
One reason is scale. The CommonCrawl dataset, for example, is millions of gigabytes in size. For most researchers outside large tech companies, the computing resources required to work at this scale are inaccessible.
Another reason is a lack of transparency in commercial AI models. OpenAI and many other developers refuse to provide precise details about the training data for their models. Research efforts to reverse engineer some of these datasets have also been stymied by copyright takedowns.
When errors are found, there is no easy fix. Simple keyword filtering could deal with specific terms such as vegetative electron microscopy. However, it would also eliminate legitimate references (such as this article).
More fundamentally, the case raises an unsettling question. How many other nonsensical terms exist in AI systems, waiting to be discovered?
Implications for science and publishing
This “digital fossil” also raises important questions about knowledge integrity as AI-assisted research and writing become more common.
We do not yet know if other such quirks plague large language models, but it is highly likely. Either way, the use of AI systems has already created problems for the peer-review process.
For instance, observers have noted the rise of “tortured phrases” used to evade automated integrity software, such as “counterfeit consciousness” instead of “artificial intelligence”. Additionally, phrases such as “I am an AI language model” have been found in other retracted papers.
Some automatic screening tools such as Problematic Paper Screener now flag vegetative electron microscopy as a warning sign of possible AI-generated content. However, such approaches can only address known errors, not undiscovered ones.
Living with digital fossils
The rise of AI creates opportunities for errors to become permanently embedded in our knowledge systems, through processes no single actor controls. This presents challenges for tech companies, researchers, and publishers alike.
Tech companies must be more transparent about training data and methods. Researchers must find new ways to evaluate information in the face of AI-generated convincing nonsense. Scientific publishers must improve their peer review processes to spot both human and AI-generated errors.
Digital fossils reveal not just the technical challenge of monitoring massive datasets, but the fundamental challenge of maintaining reliable knowledge in systems where errors can become self-perpetuating.
Aaron J. Snoswell receives funding from the Australian Research Council funded Discovery Project “Generative AI and the future of academic writing and publishing” (DP250100074) and has previously received research funding from OpenAI.
Kevin Witzenberger receives funding from the Australian Research Council funded Discovery Project “Generative AI and the future of academic writing and publishing” (DP250100074)
Rayane El Masri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The significant turn-around in the federal polls ahead of the 2025 federal election, with the momentum now moving firmly in Labor’s direction.
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted April 9–13 from a sample of 1,642, gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead, a 3.5-point gain for Labor since the previous Resolve poll that was conducted after the March 25 budget. In late February, the Coalition had led by 55–45 in Resolve, so this is a big turnaround for Labor.
Primary votes were 34% Coalition (down three), 31% Labor (up two), 13% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (down one), 12% independents (up three) and 5% others (steady).
Independents were probably offered as an option everywhere. Future Resolve polls are likely to account for the declaration of nominations on Friday by giving voters in each seat a full ballot readout. Only viable independents will attract significant support, so the overall independent vote will drop.
The preferencing method isn’t stated, but Resolve has used respondent preferences for its headline in its previous polls. By 2022 election preference flows, this poll would be about 53.5–46.5 to Labor, so it’s likely there was no difference between the two methods.
Anthony Albanese’s net approval surged 12 points to +1, with 45% saying he was doing a good job and 44% a poor job. Albanese had suffered negative double digit ratings for more than a year. Peter Dutton’s net approval slumped eight points to -18. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 46–30 (42–33 previously).
Now 68% believed Donald Trump’s election was bad for Australia, up from 60% in the post-budget poll that was taken before the stock market slump that followed Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement on April 2.
On Trump’s influence on the election, 33% said it made them less likely to vote for the Coalition while 14% said more likely (35–15 with uncommitted voters). When this question was asked of Labor, it was 22% more likely to vote Labor and 21% less likely (24–24 with uncommitted).
The Liberals continued to lead Labor on economic management by 36–31 (36–29 previously). On keeping the cost of living low, Labor and the Liberals were tied at 30–30 (31–27 to the Liberals previously). The last time the Liberals didn’t lead on cost of living was in October 2023.
Two other national polls also had Labor gaining, with Labor now leading by 50–45 including undecided in Essential, and by 54.5–45.5 in Morgan. Here is the poll graph.
With Labor’s two-party vote between 52% and 54.5% in the five most recent national polls (YouGov, Newspoll, Essential, Morgan and Resolve), they would be very likely to win a majority in the House of Representatives if the election results reflect this polling.
Single-member systems are not proportional. If Labor wins the national two-party vote by about 53–47, they will win a large majority of the seats in two-party terms against the Coalition. While Labor would lose some of their two-party win seats to Greens and independents, they would still win enough seats for a clear House majority.
Does the Coalition have any chance?
The current polls were taken after a period of stock market turmoil following Trump’s tariffs announcement. If there are no more major stock market slumps before the May 3 election, perhaps the Coalition can recover. Or Albanese could perform badly in Wednesday night’s ABC debate with Dutton. In-person early voting begins next Tuesday, so there’s less time left for recovery before many votes are cast.
The current polls all used respondent preferences for their headline, but there was no difference between respondent and 2022 election flows. Previously, polls were showing a difference of about one point in the Coalition’s favour. The Trump effect has increased Labor’s share of respondent preferences.
The Coalition’s main chance is that the polls are overstating Labor. In 2022, Labor’s primary vote was overstated, but preference flows were better for Labor than expected, causing cancellation of errors. In 2019, the polls suggested Labor would win by 51.5–48.5, but they lost by that margin.
In the US, polls have understated Trump in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections. I don’t believe that we should expect the polls are overstating Labor just because they overstated them in 2019 and 2022. But this is the Coalition’s best hope of an unexpected good result on election night.
Essential poll: Labor gains five-point lead
A national Essential poll, conducted April 9–13 from a sample of 2,254 (double the normal sample), gave Labor a 50–45 lead including undecided by respondent preferences (a 48–47 Labor lead in the post-budget Essential poll). This is Labor’s biggest lead in Essential since October 2023. If the undecided were excluded, Labor would lead by 53–47 according to The Guardian’s poll report.
Primary votes were 32% Coalition (down two), 31% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (up one), 9% One Nation (steady), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (steady), 9% for all Others (up one) and 4% undecided (down one). By 2022 election flows, this would give Labor about a 53–47 lead.
Albanese’s net approval was down one to -3 (47% disapprove, 44% approve), while Dutton’s net approval was down three to -9, his worst in Essential since May 2023. Albanese was trusted over Dutton on addressing cost of living by 34–28. By 50–33, voters thought the country was on the wrong track (52–32 previously).
By 49–18, voters wanted Australia’s annual immigration intake to decrease, with 33% wanting it to stay about the same. By 81–19, voters said they don’t pay for news via subscriptions or donations. On where they get information about news and current events, 54% selected commercial media, 24% public broadcasters, 14% social media influencers and 7% podcasters.
Morgan poll: Labor gains nine-point lead
A national Morgan poll, conducted April 7–13 from a sample of 1,708, gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the March 31 to April 4 Morgan poll.
Primary votes were 33.5% Coalition (up 0.5), 32% Labor (down 0.5), 14.5% Greens (up one), 6% One Nation (steady), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (down 0.5), 10% independents (up one) and 3% others (down 1.5). By 2022 election flows, this gave Labor an unchanged 54.5–45.5 lead.
By 48.5–34.5, voters thought the country was going in the wrong direction (52–33 previously). This is the smallest lead for wrong direction since September 2023. Morgan’s consumer confidence index was down 2.6 points to 84.2.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Our personal information is more valuable than ever. The most recent government cyber threat report warns that foreign state actors have an “enduring interest” in obtaining sensitive and personally identifiable information about Australians.
In recent weeks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese noted “there is a cyber attack in Australia roughly every six minutes. This is a regular issue.”
In some situations, it can be difficult to protect our info even when we’re aware of the risks. Notably, in Australia many rental providers and their agents collect, store and disclose excessive personal information on potential tenants. Sometimes, they collect more info than what’s needed to get a government security clearance.
With about one-third of Australian households being renters, the handling of renters’ data is a major concern for Australia’s information security.
So what information are real estate agents collecting, and how can we mitigate the risks?
With renters competing for housing, rental providers are empowered to command larger rent increases. They also require potential tenants to provide extensive personal information.
For tenants, sharing – or oversharing – of personal information in the hope of securing a home might seem acceptable.
However, the collection and handling of this information raises serious security concerns. If Australians’ sensitive personal data falls into the hands of cyber criminals, or foreign agents, this has security implications for the entire nation.
What info are renters asked for?
Potential tenants need to provide information to the satisfaction of the real estate agent and their client, the rental provider. This information is increasingly collected online via rental application websites where the form questions are controlled by real estate agents.
The rental application websites seem to recognise that this information is extensive: one rental application website started selling a privacy service where they vouch for the applicant instead of sharing their information with the real estate agents.
In some cases, the requested data matches or even exceeds the requirements for a government security clearance. The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) has a clear public privacy statement. It explains how data is collected and handled and used only for the assessment of a security clearance. Rental providers don’t necessarily follow the same stringent rules.
Information collected by some rental application forms may include five or more years of address history. Others request five or more years of employment history. In addition, financial information such as payslips and bank statements are also required.
Other sensitive – and irrelevant – information includes vehicle registration numbers and pet names.
Potential tenants are also usually asked to attach personal identification documents including passports, driver licences and Medicare cards. They may be asked to list up to two personal and one business references.
A rental agent may require five years of employment history. Author provided
If any of this information falls into the wrong hands, it easily exposes the person to social engineering, personalised scams or identity and account theft.
Who can access the info?
The names of family members and pet names are a common – albeit unsafe – choice of password. The rental application forms collect both. In Australia, research by Telstra and YouGov found that 20% of Australians used pets’ names as passwords, and 17% used their birth dates.
Pet names may be required on rental applications. This can give away some people’s passwords. Author provided
If a rental provider, or their agent, shares applicant information with others, it can be a security breach. This makes the storage, handling and sharing of this information by private rental providers a major concern.
More importantly, after the information is sent to the owner of the rental property, there is no visibility as to who that is, or what they do with the information.
Example of a privacy agreement on a rental application form. Author provided
Too much info to rent a home
Having to share extensive personal information is more than an inconvenience for renters – it’s a serious security concern. The government should put explicit limits on personal information requested by rental providers.
One technological solution to this problem could be “access tokens” provided by banks. People in Australia are protected by the Consumer Data Right. This allows consumers to authorise a data holder, such as a bank, to share data with an accredited recipient.
Australian banks are held to strict information security requirements. They already handle highly sensitive data, such as client identity, income sources and other financial information.
If real estate agents require proof of this info to vet potential rental applicants, they could request it through an authorisation token with the applicant’s bank. This way, proof of identity and financial status could be shared without having to disclose actual sensitive personal information, limiting the cyber security risk.
In the meantime, rental providers and their agents should request the least possible amount of personal information – it’s the responsible thing to do.
The article gives the example of the Consumer Data Right, a government standard managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Moataz ElQadi worked previously for the ACCC, in a different team.
Both products have a minimum 24% milk solids. The egg has a marginally higher percentage of cocoa solids (28%) than the block (27%).
So if they contain pretty much the same ingredients, what else is going on?
It’s more about the taste, texture and smell
The difference between Easter chocolate and regular chocolate is more about how we experience the flavour of chocolate – via taste, texture and smell.
Taste is the recognition of simple ingredients dissolving in saliva and entering the taste pores on our tongue. In the case of chocolate, we perceive the taste as sweet (sugar), fatty (cocoa butter) and potentially bitter (caffeine and other cocoa-based compounds).
However, texture and smell make us most likely to tell the difference between Easter and regular chocolate.
The mouth is incredibly sensitive to the texture of foods. We perceive multiple physical qualities of a food, which we call “mouthfeel”.
Smoothness, creaminess and mouthcoating (for example, an oily feeling) are important components of chocolate’s mouthfeel.
Consumers also expect round-shaped chocolate to be creamier than angular-shape chocolate.
So even before we’ve taken a bite, we perceive a chocolate egg will be creamier than a block. These expectations can shape how we experience the flavour of chocolate.
However, if the chocolate egg is not as creamy as expected, this can be disappointing.
The temperature at which chocolate is made and stored also impacts its texture. Sometimes chocolate gets a whitish haze on its surface called chocolate bloom. This is when the fat and sugar separate from each other, forming fat or sugar crystals.
Because the demand is so high during Easter, chocolate manufacturers sometimes use rapid-cooling techniques to produce hollow Easter eggs at a faster rate. This may make them more susceptible to chocolate bloom. Cheaper Easter chocolates using these rapid procedures may have a different texture than chocolate made the traditional way.
Finally, smell contributes the most to how we perceive flavour in foods. When chocolate starts to melt in our mouth, aromas are released. These aromas make their way through the back of the nose where we smell the complex scents and notes of chocolate. Depending on the chocolate, this could include fruity, earthy, buttery or floral aromas.
The shape of chocolate
We’ve already heard the shape of chocolate influences how creamy we think it is. But the shape of chocolate also influences other aspects of our eating experience.
Easter chocolate in the shape of an egg or an animal provides a large contact area inside the mouth meaning it will melt faster than a block. This impacts how quickly aroma compounds are released from the chocolate.
Biting into hollow chocolate, such as eggs and animals, may also require more time to chew and swallow. This results in Easter chocolate spending longer in our mouths with a greater release of aromas. This means we perceive a greater intensity or diversity of flavours compared to eating small squares.
How someone eats chocolate can also change its flavour. One study categorised people who ate chocolate as “suckers” or “chewers”.
Chewers tend to swallow chocolate more quickly and may perceive it to have a weaker flavour because of the shorter time for aromas to be released.
So how a person eats Easter chocolate may also impact whether they prefer it over regular chocolate.
Easter is only once a year
Last of all, eating Easter eggs (and hunting for them) are often part of a shared family ritual. This can make Easter chocolate seem special. No wonder we enjoy the whole Easter egg experience.
So whether you are a sucker or a chewer, Easter is a great time to slow down and celebrate with loved ones. Enjoy and savour your Easter chocolate in moderation, egg-shaped or otherwise.
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 April 15, 2025.
Social media is the new election battleground. Is embracing influencers smart, risky or both? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University From Abbie Chatfield and Hannah Ferguson to Ozzy Man, influencers have never been more central to an Australian election campaign. Much has been made of the increasingly common site of politicians on TikTok or Instagram reels. Some political groups don’t
Trump’s tariffs rollercoaster is really about Republican unity Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney After announcing Liberation Day – stiff “retaliatory” tariffs on every country and penguin-inhabited island in the world – US President Donald Trump rescinded the vast majority of tariffs eight days later when stock and bond markets
Peters emphasises growing importance of NZ’s Pacific ties with the United States By Grace Tinetali-Fiavaai, RNZ Pacific journalist in Hawai’i New Zealand’s Pacific connection with the United States is “more important than ever”, says Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters after rounding up the Hawai’i leg of his Pacific trip. Peters said common strategic interests of the US and New Zealand were underlined while in the state. “Our
Israeli military reservists court Australian universities amid ‘hypocrisy’ over anti-war protests Hundreds of university staff and students in Melbourne and Sydney called on their vice-chancellors to cancel pro-Israel events earlier this month, write Michael West Media’s Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon. SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon While Australia’s universities continue to repress pro-Palestine peace protests, they gave the green light to pro-Israel events
Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with 2 secretive new temples planned for Australia Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales. This follows a similar announcement
Winter electricity prices are rising – how do we know we’re getting value for money? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith University, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University Shutterstock Winter is coming to New Zealand and Australia, and with it come those inevitably higher power bills from heating our homes. But even without that seasonal spike, household power
Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University Shutterstock As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major
New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney RDNE Stock project/Pexels In the 21st century, digital technology has changed many aspects of our lives. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest newcomer, with chatbots and other AI tools changing how we learn and creating
Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University Shutterstock As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major
Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent
Focusing on a child’s strengths can transform assessments – and help them thrive after an ADHD or autism diagnosis Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney Jota Buyinch Photo/Shutterstock When parents are concerned about their child’s development, they often seek an assessment to address concerns and identify any conditions, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Australian honeybees are under attack by mites and beetles. Here’s how to keep your backyard hive safe Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cornelia Sattler, Research Fellow in Ecology & Videographer, Macquarie University Varroa mites on a male bee larva. Theotime Colin Australia’s honeybees are facing an exceptional crisis. The tiny but devastating foreign pest Varroa destructor is steadily spreading across the country. The mite feeds on baby bees (larvae),
Would looser lending rules help more people buy a house – or just put them at risk? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Grant, Associate Professor in Finance, University of Sydney doublelee/Shutterstock Big promises on housing were at the centre of both major parties’ announcements at the official federal election campaign launches on the weekend. Among the highlights, Labor pledged to build 100,000 new homes and extend a government-guaranteed
Why is it so hard for everyone to have a house in Australia? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University Bilalnol/Shutterstock Home ownership in Australia was once regarded as proof of success in life. However, it remains elusive for many people today. Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government
Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with two secretive new temples planned for Australia Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales. This follows a similar announcement
Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Peace, Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington EyesWideOpen/Getty Images Newly announced reforms to the Health and Safety at Work Act mean landowners will no longer be responsible for tourism-related injuries on their properties. But it’s not clear this
New Zealand’s humanity – does it include all of us, or only for some? COMMENTARY: By Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab “Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow. During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the
Leaked ‘working paper’ on New Caledonia’s political future sparks new concerns By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk A leaked “working paper” on New Caledonia’s future political status is causing concern on the local stage and has prompted a “clarification” from the French government’s Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls. Details of the document, which was supposed to remain confidential, have been widely circulated online
Election Diary: Will Peter Dutton help son Harry buy a house? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Political leaders’ kids are routinely put on display to share the glory or the pain of election night. Earlier, they’re often at campaign launches to “humanise” the candidates. Peter Dutton pulled out all stops with the family for his Sunday
Big Girls Don’t Cry is a powerful, heart-wrenching, and comical celebration of Indigenous resilience and survival Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Case, Lecturer in Musicology, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir With Big Girls Don’t Cry, Gumbaynggirr/Wiradjuri playwright Dalara Williams proves herself to be a formidable talent. Cheryl (Williams), Queenie (Megan Wilding) and Lulu (Stephanie Somerville) are three best friends who share a
From Abbie Chatfield and Hannah Ferguson to Ozzy Man, influencers have never been more central to an Australian election campaign.
Much has been made of the increasingly common site of politicians on TikTok or Instagram reels. Some political groups don’t like it, as don’t some in traditional media.
But in the first election in which Millennials and Gen Z voters will outnumber Baby Boomers, it’s an inevitable, politically necessary change – though not without its pitfalls.
A messy scene
Politics in the social media sphere is already starting to get messy.
A few weeks ago, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) investigated whether influencer content promoting political messages constitutes electoral advertising.
This doesn’t seem to breach electoral rules, but the lines are being blurred, particularly given the content included glowing remarks about Spender and only suggested they were created “in collaboration”, not as a paid advertisement. This has since been fixed.
The scrutiny reveals growing discomfort around this emerging form of political communication – including from politicians themselves.
As influencer Chatfield said:
there’s this like moral panic about influencers in politics as well, this whole idea influencers can’t be trusted with something as serious and as high brow as politics.
But is that the case, especially if money has changed hands?
A politicised sphere
In what is perhaps a sign of the globally uncertain times, influencing is more political than ever.
Look at the recent clash involving Holly MacAlpine, who is mounting a legal challenge to the Liberal Party’s social media strategy. She accused them of deliberately editing a clip of her supporting The Greens to make it look like she was instead criticising the party. Last night she launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal representation that reached its goal amount within hours.
Influencers are becoming more than messengers. They are political actors in their own right.
In response, TikTok has adjusted its algorithm to recognise political content at the point of upload. The content is now being held for review prior to going live.
However, at the time of writing, these guidelines don’t appear on all content that discusses politics or elections. It doesn’t appear to be attached to Australian political content in the same way this style of guideline was used during other events, like COVID.
Politics with personality
All this matters because younger generations don’t get their political information from newspapers or nightly news bulletins.
The algorithms that drive these platforms reward familiarity and engagement. When a well-known face appears on screen, users linger, boosting the reach of that post. Political messages, even subtle ones, can travel far beyond the original audience.
Influencers have a lot to contribute to political discourse, particularly in podcasts, but the way they formulate and deliver messages varies widely.
Some are not explicitly aligned with a political party, while others are transparent about where their preferences sit. How much they affect the election campaign heavily depends on their specific niche and how that relates to broader election commentary.
Glenn James, host of the Money Money Money podcast and a figure in the personal finance space was recently invited to the budget lock-up. He asked questions about student debt.
His content sits at the intersection of finance and policy, making it particularly powerful in an election where cost-of-living pressures and education debt are key issues for younger voters.
It’s an example that not all political influence on social media is overtly partisan. Sometimes, it’s about asking the right questions.
Reaching eyeballs
Perhaps influencers’ most significant contribution is not just persuasive power, but reach.
Their ability to cut through and capture attention is unmatched in today’s fragmented media landscape. In the past, audiences followed specific news outlets aligned with their values.
Now, thanks to TikTok’s “For You” Page and Instagram Reels’ algorithmic curation, users are increasingly exposed to political content from creators they don’t necessarily follow and would not otherwise encounter.
Another example is Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent use of “delulu with no solulu” (delusional with no solution) in parliament following a dare from podcast Happy Hour with Lucy and Nikki.
Even though it made no sense to a portion of the population, it gained significant momentum and was trending across platforms.
Adopting the blueprint
Influencers aren’t journalists, and most aren’t claiming to be. They’re generally upfront about the fact they’re not wedded to journalistic standards of impartiality, objectivity and holding the powerful to account.
So in an attempt to ensure traditional media reporting is also noticed by social media users, media outlets are using similar techniques, albeit through a journalistic lens.
From playing to the algorithm to providing behind the scenes content from the campaign trail, traditional media are solidifying their place in this election commentary and getting noticed.
It’s a new playing field in political campaigning. But whether it meaningfully shifts voter behaviour, or just adds to the already overwhelmed digital chatter, remains to be seen.
Susan Grantham 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.
After announcing Liberation Day – stiff “retaliatory” tariffs on every country and penguin-inhabited island in the world – US President Donald Trump rescinded the vast majority of tariffs eight days later when stock and bond markets crashed.
He followed that with more exemptions for phones, computers and computer chips two days later. Ten percent tariffs remain across the board, along with rates up to 145% on China.
Is Trump aligned with previous Reagan on tariffs?
As with anything related to Trump, perceptions overwhelm reality. Trump’s showmanship – call him a carnival barker if you must – obfuscates what is really happening.
Trump is seen as a protectionist and a populist. By comparison, former president Ronald Reagan was seen as a principled free trader and more ideologically conservative. Both images are misleading.
Reagan slapped tariffs on cars, steel, lumber, computers, computer chips, motorcycles, machine tools, even clothes pins. The great guru of free markets, Milton Friedman, is reported to have said that the Reagan administration has been “making Smoot-Hawley look positively benign.” (Smoot-Hawley was an infamous tariff law enacted in 1930 at the beginning of the Great Depression.)
Reagan went back and forth on tariffs, even attacking them in a radio address when Japan tried to impose them. At the end of the day, his record on the issue was as mixed as that of any American president.
Trump’s politics, if not his showmanship, look a lot more like traditional Republican approaches in the cold light of day. The showmanship – provocative statements, grand exaggerations, outright falsehoods and even stand-up-comic-like aspects – is purposeful.
Keeping Republicans united
The main goal of Trump’s tariff showmanship, largely unreported in the press, is keeping congressional Republicans unified as he pushes his domestic policy agenda of lower taxes, budget cuts, expanded energy production and tougher immigration policies.
Congressional Republicans have been working for months on legislating this agenda through the complex budget reconciliation process. This legislative process is difficult and involves passing budget resolutions through the Senate and the House on a specific schedule. This process is required because it allows for a path around the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. With only 53 Republican senators and a Democratic Party that is committed to resisting Trump on almost every policy choice, Trump needs the reconciliation process to work this year.
In one sense, all of Trump’s activities since his inauguration – the “waste”-cutting DOGE, spending cuts, ending foreign aid programs, laying off federal workers – have given him the political space with congressional Republicans, particularly fiscal conservatives, to advance his legislative agenda. It is important to know that Congressional Republicans have been ungovernable for quite some time.
Over the past ten years, there have been five Republican Speakers of the House – John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Patrick McHenry (acting) and now Mike Johnson. This unprecedented turnover is caused by a virtually unmanageable Republican coalition of mainstream business-oriented conservatives and the fiscal hawks who generally populate the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus is more than willing to vote against other Republicans – indeed they are proud of it. Because of this, speaker after speaker has had to reach out to Democrats for votes to pass legislation, ultimately dooming their time in the position.
Trump has managed to keep this ungovernable group of House Republicans united, and this may be his true political gift.
To achieve this, he has engaged in a comprehensive campaign of maximum pressure on just about everything: Canada, Greenland, NATO, Europe, China, Ukraine, American universities, federal workers, illegal immigrants, big law firms and even paper straws.
Congressional Republicans, in appreciation of this shock and awe campaign, have stayed united. This means Trump’s legislative agenda can move forward.
With his global tariff plan, Trump saw Republicans beginning to defect. In one Senate vote in April, four Republicans sided with Democrats against tariffs on Canada. Senator Ted Cruz warned that Republicans might lose the 2026 election because of tariffs. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the oldest senator and one of the most conservative, indicated he would support bringing tariff authority back to Congress and away from the president.
Trump can read a room as well as anyone. When he saw Republican unity was at risk because of his tariff plan, he quickly pivoted to a much more moderate version. While Trump’s grandiosity is often highly criticised, it is that quality that gives him the ability to keep his party together, and therefore to govern.
Sparking panic among Democrats
The other major effect of Trump’s tariffs strategy is to sow discord among his opponents.
Democrats, who want to criticise Trump but know their own party has often endorsed tariffs in the past, are reeling. Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer said she understood Trump’s “motivation behind the tariffs” and even agreed with Trump that we “need to make more stuff in America”. She was immediately criticised by fellow Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, tried a slightly more aggressive anti-Trump approach. He said:
Tariffs, when properly utilized, have a role to play in trying to make sure that you have a competitive environment for our workers and our businesses. That’s not what’s going on right now. This is a reckless economic sledgehammer that Donald Trump and compliant Republicans in the Congress are taking to the economy, and the American people are being hurt enough.
This response won’t help Democrats climb out of their deep hole of unpopularity, measured last month at an historic low.
Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.
Hundreds of university staff and students in Melbourne and Sydney called on their vice-chancellors to cancel pro-Israel events earlier this month, write Michael West Media’s Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon
While Australia’s universities continue to repress pro-Palestine peace protests, they gave the green light to pro-Israel events earlier this month, sparking outrage from anti-war protesters over the hypocrisy.
Israeli lobby groups StandWithUs Australia (SWU) and Israel-IS organised a series of university events this week which featured Israel Defense Force (IDF) reservists who have served during the war in Gaza, two of whom lost family members in the Hamas resistance attack on October 7, 2023.
The events were promoted as “an immersive VR experience with an inspiring interfaith panel” discussing the importance of social cohesion, on and off campus.”
Hundreds of staff and students at Monash, Sydney Uni, UNSW and UTS signed letters calling on their universities to “act swiftly to cancel the SWU event and make clear that organisations and individuals who worked with the Israel Defense Forces did not have a place on UNSW campuses.”
SWU is a global charity organisation which supports Israel and fights all conduct it perceives to be “antisemitic”. It campaigns against the United Nations and international NGOs’ findings against Israel and is currently supporting actions to suspend United States students supporting Palestine.
It established an office in Sydney in 2022 and Michael Gencher, who previously worked at the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was appointed as CEO.
The event’s co-sponsor, Israel-IS, is a similar propaganda outfit whose mission is to “connect with people before they connect with ideas” particularly through “cutting edge technologies like VR and AI.”
Among their 18 staff, one employee’s role is “IDF coordinator’” while two employees serve as “heads of Influencer Academy”.
The events were a test for management at Monash, UTS, UNSW and USyd to see how far each would go in cooperating with the Israel lobby.
Some events cancelled At Monash, an open letter criticising the event was circulated by staff and students. The event was then cancelled without explanation.
At UNSW, 51 staff and postgraduate students signed an open letter to vice-chancellor Atilla Brungs, calling for the event’s cancellation. It was signed on their behalf by Jessica Whyte, an associate professor of philosophy in arts and law and Noam Peleg, associate professor in the Faculty of Law and Justice.
Prior to the scheduled event, Michael West Media sent questions to UNSW. After the event was scheduled to occur, the university responded to MWM, informing us that it had not taken place.
As of today, two days after the event was scheduled, vice-chancellor Brungs has not responded to the letter.
UTS warning to students The UTS branch of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students partnered with Israel-IS in organising the UTS event, in alignment with their core “pillars” of Zionism and activism. The student group seeks to “promote a positive image of Israel on campus” to achieve its vision of a world where Jewish students are committed to Israel.
UTS Students’ Association, Palestinian Youth Society and UTS Muslim Student Society wrote to management but deputy vice-chancellor Kylie Readman rejected pleas. She replied that the event’s organisers had guaranteed it would be “a small private event focused on minority Israeli perspectives” and that speakers would only speak in a personal capacity.
While acknowledging the conflict in the Middle East was stressful for many at UTS, she then warned students, “UTS has not received formal notification of any intent to protest, as is required under the campus policy. As such, I must advise that any protest activity planned for 2nd April will be unauthorised. I would urge you to encourage students not to participate in an unauthorised protest.”
Students who allegedly breach campus policies can face disciplinary proceedings that can lead to suspension.
UTS Student Association president Mia Campbell told MWM, “The warning given by UTS about protesting definitely felt intimidating and frightening to a number of students, including myself.
“Especially as a law student, misconduct allegations can affect your admission to the profession . . . but with all other avenues of communication exhausted between us and the university, it felt like we didn’t have a choice.
I don’t want to look back on what I was doing during this genocide and have done any less than what was possible at the time.
A UTS student reads the names of Gaza children killed in Israel’s War on Gaza. Image: Wendy Bacon/MWM
Sombre, but quietly angry protest The UTS protest was sombre but quietly angry. Speakers read from lists naming dead Palestinian children.
One speaker, who has lost 120 members of his extended family in Gaza, explained why he protested: “We have to be backed into a corner, told we can’t protest, told we can’t do anything. We’ve exhausted every single policy . . . Add to all that we are threatened with misconduct.”
Do you think we can stay silent while there are people on campus who may have played a part in the killings in Gaza?
SWU at University of Sydney University of Sydney staff and students who signed an open letter received no reply before the event.
Activists from USyd staff in support of Palestine, Students Against War and Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 began protesting outside the Michael Spence building that houses the university’s senior executives on the Wednesday evening, April 2.
Escorted by UTS security, three SWU representatives arrived. A small group was admitted. Soon afterwards, the participants could be seen from below in the building’s meeting room.
A few protesters remained and booed the attendees as they left. These included Mark Leach, a far right Christian Zionist and founder of pro-Israeli group Never Again is Now. Later on X, he condemned the protesters and described Israel as a “multi-ethnic enclave of civilisation.”
Warning letters for students Several student activists have received letters recently warning them about breaching the new USyd code of conduct regulating protests. USyd has also adopted a definition of anti-semitism which critics say could restrict criticism of Israel.
A Jews against Occupation ’48 speaker, Judith Treanor, said, “Welcoming this organisation makes a mockery of this university’s stated values of respect, non-harassment, and anti-racism.
“In the context of this university’s adoption of draconian measures to stifle freedom of expression in relation to Palestine, the decision to host this event promoting Israel reveals a shocking level of hypocrisy and a huge abuse of power.”
Jews Against the Occupation ‘48: L-R Suzie Gold, Laurie Izaks MacSween and Judith Treanor at the protest. Image: Vivienne Moore/MWM
No stranger to USyd Michael Gencher is no stranger to USyd. Since October 2023, he has opposed student encampments and street protests.
On one occasion, he visited the USyd protest student encampment in support of Palestine with Richard Kemp, a retired British army commander who tirelessly promotes the IDF. Kemp’s most recent X post congratulates Hungary for withdrawing from “the International Criminal Kangaroo Court. Other countries should reject this political court and follow suit.”
Kemp and Gencher filmed themselves attempting to interrogate students about their knowledge of conflict in the Middle East on May 21, 2024, but the students refused to be provoked and declined to engage.
In May 2024, Gercher helped organise a joint rally at USyd with Zionist Group Together with Israel, a partner of far-right group Australian Jewish Association. Extreme Zionist Ofir Birenbaum, who was recently exposed as covertly filming staff at an inner city cafe, Cairo Takeaway, helped organise the rally.
Students at the USyd encampment told MWM that they experienced provocative behaviour towards them during the May rally.
Opposition to StandWithUs Those who oppose the SWU campus events draw on international findings condemning Israel and its IDF, explained in similar letters to university leaders.
After the USyd event, those who signed a letter received a response from vice-chancellor Mark Scott.
He explained, “We host a broad range of activities that reflect different perspectives — we recognise our role as a place for debate and disagreeing well, which includes tolerance of varied opinions.”
His response ignored the concerns raised, which leaves this question: Why are organisations that reject all international and humanitarian legal findings, including ones of genocide and ethnic cleansing,
being made to feel ‘safe and welcome’ when their critics risk misconduct proceedings?
SWU CEO Michael Gencher went on the attack in the Jewish press:
“We’re seeing a coordinated attempt to intimidate universities into silencing Israeli voices simply because they don’t conform to a radical political narrative.” He accused the academics of spreading “provable lies, dangerous rhetoric, and blatant hypocrisy.”
SWU regards United Nations and other findings against Israel as false.
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission of the authors.
New Zealand’s Pacific connection with the United States is “more important than ever”, says Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters after rounding up the Hawai’i leg of his Pacific trip.
Peters said common strategic interests of the US and New Zealand were underlined while in the state.
“Our Pacific links with the United States are more important than ever,” Peters said.
“New Zealand’s partnership with the United States remains one of our most long standing and important, particularly when seen in the light of our joint interests in the Pacific and the evolving security environment.”
The Deputy Prime Minister has led a delegation made up of cross-party MPs, who are heading to Fiji for a brief overnight stop, before heading to Vanuatu.
Peters said the stop in Honolulu allowed for an exchange of ideas and the role New Zealand can play in working with regional partners in the region.
“We have long advocated for the importance of an active and engaged United States in the Indo-Pacific, and this time in Honolulu allowed us to continue to make that case.”
Approaching Trump ‘right way’ The delegation met with Hawai’i’s Governor Josh Green, who confirmed with him that New Zealand was approaching US President Donald Trump in the “right way”.
“The fact is, this is a massively Democrat state. But nevertheless, they deal with Washington very, very well, and privately, we have got an inside confirmation that our approach is right.
“Be very careful, these things are very important, words matter and be ultra-cautious. All those things were confirmed by the governor.”
Governor Green told reporters he had spent time with Trump and talked to the US administration all the time.
“I can’t guarantee that they will bend their policies, but I try to be very rational for the good of our state, in our region, and it seems to be so far working,” he said.
He said the US and New Zealand were close allies.
“So having these additional connections with the political leadership and people from the community and business leaders, it helps us, because as we move forward in somewhat uncertain times, having more friends helps.”
At the East-West Center in Honolulu, Peters said New Zealand and the United States had not always seen eye-to-eye and “US Presidents have not always been popular back home”.
“My view of the strategic partnership between New Zealand and the United States is this: we each have the right, indeed the imperative, to pursue our own foreign policies, driven by our own sense of national interest.”
The delegation also met the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Samuel Paparo, the interim president of the East-West Center Dr James Scott, and Hawai’i-based representatives for Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
STATEMENT: The church announced its official position that Le Parisien distorted facts about Shincheonji France in an article published last week, only quoting speculative statements from someone who left the church. On the other hand the church’s statement made up only two lines of the report, barely reflecting the actual state of the faith community.
The article was titled “They Treated Us Like Animals” and defined Shincheonji Church of Jesus as one of the “problematic evangelical groups” in France based on the personal testimony of an anonymous former member.
Shincheonji France says, “the reputation of the church and its members has been seriously damaged”, with the article mentioning training camps, severing relationships, and demands for money.
But a church official criticized, “We faithfully submitted thousands of characters of written responses to the 12 questions the reporter had sent us in advance, but only two sentences were reflected in the main text of the article,” and “This is less than 1% of the total responses, which seriously limited the opportunity to convey a balanced perspective to readers.”
They also said, “Considering that the report was published just four hours after the responses were sent to the reporter, we could tell that it was a one-sided, targeted, slanderous article.”
They continued, “If the written response was insufficient, they (the reporter) could have visited the actual church to check the religious scene and directly heard the voices of the current believers,” adding, “the church is always ready to respond to open communication with the media.”
The church also provided heart-felt testimonies from believers who are currently practicing their faith at Shincheonji Church of Jesus.
Teresa (29), who has been attending the church in Paris for six years, said, “Faith is something that is done voluntarily. Here, I came to know God properly and learned how to act as a person of God and shine in the world.”
Another believer, Axel (30), said, “Before coming to Shincheonji Church, I was looking for the meaning of my life. Since I started believing in Shincheonji Church, I was able to realize what God wants, and I love doing God’s work. While doing my mission, I was able to go on trips that I like, and I was able to meet my wife at church. I am living a truly satisfying life.”
Even the title of the article itself sparked shock and embarrassment amongst the members, stating, “no one has ever been treated like that, and we do not think that way. It was just used as a sensational article title to attract attention”.
“In reality, we do not allow threats or stigmatization of those who have left the church, and a culture has been established that respects individual choices even after leaving the church.”
The church also refuted the claim that the former member “broke up with her boyfriend because of the church’s request,” saying, “It is not true.”
“The man in question (boyfriend) was a believer who attended the church with her at the time, and I understand that he wanted to get married. However, the woman said that she had no intention of getting married right away. The breakup was a decision made based on conversation between the parties and their personal religious concerns, and the church never induced or forced any choice.”
They emphasized that “dating and marriage are personal areas based on autonomy and responsibility, and it is not true to link this to the church’s control.”
The church also took issue with the fact that the article included situations that the interviewee had not actually experienced.
There was a photo used in the report of a person putting their feet on a radiator, and it was referred to as “corporal punishment”, but the photo had nothing to do with corporal punishment and was taken before the interviewee entered the church.
“The person in the photo is a man who is still a believer in the church, and at the time, he did that pose thinking that it was okay, and someone else took the picture for fun”, the church said.
The man in the photo was shocked to see it being used and plans to file an official complaint about it being used without his consent and for misconstruing its intention.
The church stated, “It is very regrettable that the media cited and reported this statement without fact-checking, as it may give readers the biased perception that the entire Shincheonji Church of Jesus is an abnormal organization.”
Regarding the “training camp” mentioned in the article, the church explained, “the program was a short-term training program that some missionaries who hoped for religious growth participated in 100% voluntarily.”
“It consisted of morning prayers, meditation on the word and the person could stop the camp at any time. There was no physical punishment or coercion.”
“However, we are aware that there is room for misunderstanding from an outside perspective, and we are currently not operating the program.”
Regarding claims of collecting personal information, restricting internet use, and inducing severance of family relationships, the church stated, “This is completely untrue, and we do not collect anything other than the minimum information required for religious counseling.”
They emphasized, “We have never restricted internet use or external relationships, and rather, we encourage our members to live exemplary lives in their families and society.”
The report also accused Shincheonji France of using a false name, ECA Academy. But the church explained, “It was the name of a Bible education program temporarily used in 2019, and at the beginning of the class, we clearly informed that we were affiliated with Shincheonji Church of Jesus, and after that, the decision to join the church was completely up to the individual’s discretion.”
The church further requests media to;
-Carry out comprehensive coverage that reflects various perspectives and experiences, and sufficiently reflects the church’s official position and responses
-Provide fair reporting on the actual experiences and voices of currently active members
-Establish a reporting culture that respects religious freedom and the dignity of believers, and
-Refrain from promoting prejudice through provocative expressions and titles.
Church officials emphasized, “Biased reporting on a specific religion or religious community can result in imposing stigma and prejudice on good believers and undermining religious freedom and human rights,” and “the media should contain diverse voices based on balanced information and mutual respect, rather than provocative approaches that induce hatred.”
They continued, “We hope that all media, including Le Parisien, will maintain higher ethical standards and balance in religious reporting, and Shincheonji Church of Jesus will continue to do its best to help correct understanding through transparent communication and open dialogue.”
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales.
This follows a similar announcement last year of plans to build a second temple for Queensland, in South Brisbane.
The two new structures – together with existing temples in Sydney (1984), Adelaide (2000), Melbourne (2000), Perth (2001) and Brisbane (2003) – will bring the total number of Australian temples to seven.
In a nation with fewer than 160,000 practising Mormons, these new buildings seek to increase the legitimacy and visibility of the church.
The Melbourne temple was erected in 2000, as was the temple in Adelaide. Wikimedia
The significance of temples
There are currently at least 200 completed Mormon temples around the globe, with an additional 182 under construction or announced.
Temples have a different purpose and scope to Mormon chapels, which are far more common: Australia has about 190 Mormon chapels.
Chapels are used for weekly sacrament (or communion) and weekly sermons. They are open to visitors, and often hold cultural events, extra church activities and family history centres.
Temples, on the other hand, represent the blending of the divine and temporal. According to the Mormon worldview and doctrines, they are the world’s most sacred structures.
Each temple is emblazoned with the phrase “The House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord”. This isn’t just symbolic. Mormons believe each temple is literally the house of God, in which his presence may be felt.
Given the gravity of this belief, these spaces are reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to enter by Mormon leaders.
Inside the House of the Lord
The church itself maintains that temples are “sacred, not secret”. It has long worked to dispel speculation over what happens within temple bounds.
One way it does this is through “open houses”, in which a newly-built temple may be toured by anyone for a brief period. Once the open house has ended and the temple has been “dedicated” by a church leader – a process that includes blessing the building and those who will use it – it becomes entirely closed to the public.
Within the temples, the most sacred rituals and knowledge of “the gospel” are imparted upon faithful members. Rituals can be performed for both living people and deceased ancestors. They must never be conducted – or even discussed – outside the sacred temple space.
One of these rituals is baptism and confirmation for the dead by proxy (baptisms for the living are conducted in chapels or other spaces). This provides the deceased individuals “ordinances” that are necessary for salvation, which they did not receive during life.
These baptisms have been controversial at times, with ordinances performed on individuals who were not direct ancestors of Latter-day Saints, including Holocaust victims and historical figures such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even prominent Australians such as Ned Kelly, Malcolm Fraser, Neville Bonner and Truganini have allegedly appeared as “baptised” in Mormon records.
The rituals are accompanied by various stages of knowledge progression for attendees. As with the rituals, temple knowledge is not to be discussed outside.
Local opposition
The air of secrecy and exclusivity surrounding Mormon temples has resulted in a flood of negative attention from Australian media, other religious institutions and society at large. News reports from as far back as the early 20th century sought to expose “Mormon temple secrets”.
The first temple, built in Sydney in 1984, was widely protested by community groups and organisations. The building had to be modified by the church before it was eventually approved. A similar situation transpired in Brisbane in the early 2000s.
In other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, temples were not directly protested, but were still critiqued for their lavishness, with the average Australian temple costing around A$8 million in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Given the cost of living crisis, and contention over the place of religion in contemporary Australia, the two proposed temples will likely also face criticism.
Reputational management
The church’s reputation in Australia has become ever more complicated over the past 20 years, not least due to several controversies.
In 2022 and 2023, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported the church was allegedly abusing tax laws, to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was addressed, but not confirmed or denied, in the November 2022 Senate Estimates by Australian Tax Office Assistant Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, after questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge. Accusations of tax evasion have also been made in New Zealand and the United States.
The new Australian temples will be completed under a pall of critiques and accusations around church finances and other controversies. And while they might be briefly open to the public, their doors will just as quickly shut – adding more fuel to the speculation.
Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith University, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University
Winter is coming to New Zealand and Australia, and with it come those inevitably higher power bills from heating our homes.
But even without that seasonal spike, household power bills were already set to rise by NZ$10 to $25 a month in New Zealand and up to A$9 a month in parts of Australia.
This is not, as some might assume, because electricity suppliers are acting uncompetitively. It’s because regulators are increasing charges for long-distance electricity transmission (pylons and substations) and short-distance distribution (poles and wires).
Those charges together make up around 40% of power bills on average, so the price increases matter. In New Zealand, an average 15% of household budgets is spent on electricity. The proportion going towards those infrastructure costs is higher for low-income, regional and rural households.
To put this another way, these fixed parts of our power bills can equal what a typical household spends on mobile phones, public transport or water services.
Transmission and distribution services are regulated because they are provided by monopolies. Regulators such as the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and the Australian Energy Regulator in eastern Australia try to set reasonable prices while still allowing those firms enough money to provide reliable services.
However, this old regulatory model is being challenged by changing consumer behaviour. Households are increasingly electrifying, switching to heat pumps for space and water heating, and electric vehicles (EVs) for personal transport.
Regulators want to ensure the reliability of electricity supply doesn’t significantly decline. But households that rely on electricity want greater reliability – especially with growing demand for “smart” appliances that can be damaged by outages.
Quality versus quantity
Unfortunately, history is a poor guide to how regulation should ensure these future reliability needs are met. Furthermore, electricity is an unusual “product” – the quantity we consume is often an afterthought, while the affordability and quality of supply are more top of mind.
Importantly, quality means much more to consumers than just reliability. It includes how well outages are planned and communicated, how easy it is to get help and updates when things go wrong, new connection times, and the voltage stability modern appliances require.
What constitutes good service might also include customer charters or other guarantees of minimum acceptable expectations, as well as compensation schemes.
Beyond these options, however, the very basis for regulation is being upturned as households invest in rooftop solar panels, home batteries and electric vehicles (EVs). The competition offered by these new technologies means distribution companies are no longer monopoly providers because households can get electricity in new ways.
This also means households expect new services from those providers – such as being able to sell electricity to others (including to distribution companies themselves to help them maintain reliable supply).
Smart appliances, solar power and EVs are all changing consumer expectations of the electricity market. Shutterstock
What customers really want
Historically, electricity regulation has responded to emerging challenges like these with “bolt-on” solutions. Each one tries to address a specific issue individually, but not in a coherent and joined-up way.
Overall, how and why we regulate electricity transmission and distribution need rethinking from the ground up, not more rounds of regulatory whack-a-mole. Consumer preferences need to be more than a vague overriding objective. They need to be at the heart of regulation.
New Zealand’s Commerce Commission already exempts many distribution firms from much regulation because they are owned and governed by customers. And regulators in other English-speaking countries, including Australia, increasingly rely on consumer forums and other channels to indirectly and only partially identify consumer preferences.
But neither model obtains directly usable information about what consumers want – from those consumers themselves. Unsurprisingly, customer preferences are not widely or systematically reflected in regulation.
Besides, asking customers about quality and reliability of service assumes they can clearly articulate what they care about and what value they attach to them in ways regulators can use.
Value for money
One solution is to use a direct measure of consumer satisfaction. We developed and applied a version of this in recent research involving a survey of Swedish electricity customers.
We measured satisfaction by asking consumers to rate the “value for money” they perceived from their distribution firm, ranging from zero (lowest) to five (highest).
Perceptions of quality can vary and are inherently subjective. But value for money can be interpreted as a ratio of quality to price: higher quality means higher value for money, higher price means lower value for money. From this, we obtained an objective measure of overall customer satisfaction levels.
As might be expected, we found value for money tended to be higher for customers of distribution firms owned and controlled by those customers. But directly measuring customer satisfaction in this way could be a good basis for regulation reform in general.
We still need to better understand how customer satisfaction is affected by regulatory decisions. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that fundamental changes are happening in the sector.
Electricity customers heading into winter might be happier with rising transmission and distribution prices if they were confident regulation genuinely improved their overall value for money.
Business as usual, on the other hand, may offer them only cold comfort.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales.
This follows a similar announcement last year of plans to build a second temple for Queensland, in South Brisbane.
The two new structures – together with existing temples in Sydney (1984), Adelaide (2000), Melbourne (2000), Perth (2001) and Brisbane (2003) – will bring the total number of Australian temples to seven.
In a nation with fewer than 160,000 practising Mormons, these new buildings seek to increase the legitimacy and visibility of the church.
The Melbourne temple was erected in 2000, as was the temple in Adelaide. Wikimedia
The significance of temples
There are currently at least 200 completed Mormon temples around the globe, with an additional 182 under construction or announced.
Temples have a different purpose and scope to Mormon chapels, which are far more common: Australia has about 190 Mormon chapels.
Chapels are used for weekly sacrament (or communion) and weekly sermons. They are open to visitors, and often hold cultural events, extra church activities and family history centres.
Temples, on the other hand, represent the blending of the divine and temporal. According to the Mormon worldview and doctrines, they are the world’s most sacred structures.
Each temple is emblazoned with the phrase “The House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord”. This isn’t just symbolic. Mormons believe each temple is literally the house of God, in which his presence may be felt.
Given the gravity of this belief, these spaces are reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to enter by Mormon leaders.
Inside the House of the Lord
The church itself maintains that temples are “sacred, not secret”. It has long worked to dispel speculation over what happens within temple bounds.
One way it does this is through “open houses”, in which a newly-built temple may be toured by anyone for a brief period. Once the open house has ended and the temple has been “dedicated” by a church leader – a process that includes blessing the building and those who will use it – it becomes entirely closed to the public.
Within the temples, the most sacred rituals and knowledge of “the gospel” are imparted upon faithful members. Rituals can be performed for both living people and deceased ancestors. They must never be conducted – or even discussed – outside the sacred temple space.
One of these rituals is baptism and confirmation for the dead by proxy (baptisms for the living are conducted in chapels or other spaces). This provides the deceased individuals “ordinances” that are necessary for salvation, which they did not receive during life.
These baptisms have been controversial at times, with ordinances performed on individuals who were not direct ancestors of Latter-day Saints, including Holocaust victims and historical figures such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even prominent Australians such as Ned Kelly, Malcolm Fraser, Neville Bonner and Truganini have allegedly appeared as “baptised” in Mormon records.
The rituals are accompanied by various stages of knowledge progression for attendees. As with the rituals, temple knowledge is not to be discussed outside.
Local opposition
The air of secrecy and exclusivity surrounding Mormon temples has resulted in a flood of negative attention from Australian media, other religious institutions and society at large. News reports from as far back as the early 20th century sought to expose “Mormon temple secrets”.
The first temple, built in Sydney in 1984, was widely protested by community groups and organisations. The building had to be modified by the church before it was eventually approved. A similar situation transpired in Brisbane in the early 2000s.
In other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, temples were not directly protested, but were still critiqued for their lavishness, with the average Australian temple costing around A$8 million in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Given the cost of living crisis, and contention over the place of religion in contemporary Australia, the two proposed temples will likely also face criticism.
Reputational management
The church’s reputation in Australia has become ever more complicated over the past 20 years, not least due to several controversies.
In 2022 and 2023, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported the church was allegedly abusing tax laws, to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was addressed, but not confirmed or denied, in the November 2022 Senate Estimates by Australian Tax Office Assistant Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, after questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge. Accusations of tax evasion have also been made in New Zealand and the United States.
The new Australian temples will be completed under a pall of critiques and accusations around church finances and other controversies. And while they might be briefly open to the public, their doors will just as quickly shut – adding more fuel to the speculation.
Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.
Home ownership in Australia was once regarded as proof of success in life. However, it remains elusive for many people today.
Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government initiatives, including those announced by Labor and the Coalition at their election campaign launches on the weekend, risk driving up demand.
What’s gone wrong?
The Grattan Institute says increasing housing supply is essential to maintain price stability over time, but notes we are not making enough progress.
Australia will miss its goal to build 1.2 million new homes within five years if we stick to the current housing policies and construction practices.
Why it’s not working
There is a wide range of reasons why Australia is failing to provide enough housing:
Fragmented policy approach: A national approach involving all levels of government aligning their policies, rules and regulations is needed.
Planning bottlenecks: Some projects face years of delay due to local council regulations and zoning requirements. The Productivity Commission has reported Australia’s planning system has excessive barriers to new projects, including medium-density developments.
Land release delays: State governments are slow to release new land for housing. This is often because of community opposition, political considerations and market dynamics. This results in limited availability, which leads to higher costs for land that can be developed.
Skills shortages: Recent immigration restrictions have worsened the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the residential construction sector.
Demand-side subsidies: Government programs, such as first home buyer grants, help some people buy homes. However, they also make housing less affordable because they can result in increased prices.
What could work without raising prices
There are various changes that could be made without necessarily raising prices.
Duplication and logjams could be removed if a national housing strategy was introduced. This should integrate policies and regulations across federal, state and local jurisdictions.
Federal grants and incentives should be tied to states meeting targets for land release, re-zoning permits and streamlined approvals.
Using innovative construction technologies can cut construction time by as much as 50%. These include prefabricated and modular building parts, which are made in factories and later assembled at the construction site.
A government update of land use and zoning permits would make it easier and faster to build medium-density housing near transport and job hubs. This is a quick way to add dwellings without sprawl.
Governments could also offer tax or planning concessions for developments that lock in affordable rents. This would help create stable, long-term rental options.
Learning from other countries
Australia can get ideas for increasing housing supply without raising prices from the experience of other countries.
Through substantial investments in social housing, Finland has significantly reduced homelessness and created stable housing options for families with limited income.
Large-scale prefab public housing originated in Singapore decades ago as a method to accelerate construction timelines and reduce expenses. Prefabrication is only used in 8% of projects in Australia at the moment.
Prefabrication is widely used in building sectors in other countries as a cheaper and faster way of responding to housing shortages. brizmaker/Shutterstock
Sweden has adopted advanced modular construction techniques, which result in 80% of homes being built off-site.
Germany employs municipal-led housing associations along with rent controls to maintain price stability and tenant protection.
And in the UK, inclusionary zoning regulations mandate that new developments either contain affordable housing units or contribute to a fund that supports affordable housing in different locations. This helps create diverse housing options in most neighborhoods.
Election promises versus real change
Significant reforms are needed – not election sweeteners. To make genuine progress, we need to invest heavily in modern construction techniques, transform housing approval processes and ensure states promptly release essential land.
The solution requires a coordinated response from federal, state and local governments. This would enable more Australians to obtain homeownership and secure rental options.
Our politicians must avoid short-term promises during elections because these threaten to return us to the destructive pattern of escalating prices and dissatisfied homebuyers. Long-term policy reform is what we need.
Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).
Big promises on housing were at the centre of both major parties’ announcements at the official federal election campaign launches on the weekend.
Among the highlights, Labor pledged to build 100,000 new homes and extend a government-guaranteed 5% deposit scheme to all first home buyers. The Coalition promised to make interest payments on the first A$650,000 of a mortgage tax-deductible for up to five years, for eligible first home buyers purchasing new builds.
Promising to help would-be homebuyers without access to the “bank of mum and dad”, the policy aims to make loans easier to get amid high interest rates and house prices. But it has also reignited debate over lending regulation.
What exactly does this buffer do, and what might we lose by lowering it?
Protecting banks and borrowers
Mortgage buffers are a risk management tool, regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).
When banks assess a home loan, they don’t just check if you can repay it at today’s rate. They test whether you could still afford it if interest rates were higher.
Suppose a borrower in Sydney takes out a mortgage of $780,000 (around the average loan size). At a 6% interest rate, the monthly repayments over 30 years would be about $4,672.
Under the current serviceability buffer – three percentage points – banks assess whether this prospective borrower could still afford repayments if interest rates rose to 9%, which would increase their monthly repayments to around $6,270.
This buffer doesn’t increase the price the borrower actually pays. It simply ensures they have the capacity to service higher repayments if conditions worsen.
The last time mortgage rates were above 9% for an extended period (1996), Peter Dutton was in the Queensland Police Service, the Swans had lost the AFL Grand Final, and Oasis were about to cancel their Australian tour. Could history repeat itself?
APRA increased the serviceability buffer from 2.5% to 3% in late 2021. But at the time, Australia’s cash rate was very low, at just 0.1%. It’s now 4.1%.
Critics argue the buffer has become too restrictive now that rates are higher, locking out first home buyers and those without parental financial help.
The buffer can also act as a barrier to refinancing. Those who qualified for a loan when interest rates were low may no longer meet serviceability requirements under higher rates. Research suggests that removing refinancing barriers can reduce loan defaults and support household spending.
The risks
There are good reasons for the measures we have to protect borrowers from future shocks.
Reducing the buffer allows more borrowers to qualify for the same loan. But it also means there’s less built-in protection against future rate rises.
Research shows the risk of a borrower defaulting on their mortgage increases sharply when their loan-to-value ratio – the amount borrowed divided by the property’s purchase price – is above 75%, or where a borrower is spending two-thirds of their income on the mortgage.
But buffers also need to be set carefully, ensuring they don’t unnecessarily lock out creditworthy borrowers.
The mortgage serviceability buffer is designed to protect borrowers from sudden financial shocks. doublelee/Shutterstock
Help for first home buyers?
When considered together with the Coalition’s additional policies – to allow first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation for a home deposit and deduct mortgage payments from their taxable income – the implications become clearer.
Economic theory suggests that combined, such measures would move more borrowers closer to the margin of affordability.
Many would likely take on the maximum debt they could qualify for, leaving them highly exposed if economic or interest rate conditions deteriorate.
And the very borrowers likely to rely on superannuation withdrawals to fund their deposits are also those with limited savings and potentially high loan-to-value ratios. The borrowers most affected by the barrier are therefore among the most vulnerable to repayment stress.
What about house prices?
There’s the obvious question of what reducing the barriers to borrowing would do to house prices, without a corresponding increase in supply.
Research has shown stricter borrower-level constraints are effective in slowing house price growth, especially during periods of rapid credit expansion.
These policies are most effective when targeted toward high-risk borrower groups such as first home buyers or those with high loan-to-valuation ratios.
Some economists argue buffers need not be static. Instead, they could be tightened during booms to prevent the housing market overheating, and eased during tougher times to avoid cutting off credit unnecessarily.
So, should we lower the buffer?
Serviceability buffers aren’t just bureaucratic hurdles. They are an unseen brake on unsustainable borrowing and a cushion against future shocks.
Borrower constraints don’t only reduce default risk – research shows they also redistribute credit more efficiently, shifting it away from overheated urban markets and toward lower-risk borrowers.
The first cut to the cash rate in nearly five years has eased Australian mortgage stress risk in the short term. With renewed borrowing appetite, the role of buffers becomes even more critical.
Removing them may help more people into homes in the short run, but it comes at the risk of greater pain later.
Andrew Grant has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Credit Management and illion (Experian).
Australia’s honeybees are facing an exceptional crisis. The tiny but devastating foreign pest Varroa destructor is steadily spreading across the country.
The mite feeds on baby bees (larvae), weakening them. It can also spread viruses that eventually destroy entire bee colonies.
What’s worse, Varroa destructor isn’t acting alone. In many parts of New South Wales, the mite’s arrival appears to have triggered a surge in another destructive pest: the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida).
A wet summer in the east has created ideal conditions for beetle outbreaks. This combination is putting enormous pressure on bees and beekeepers alike. Here’s how to help support the bee industry and, if you’re a backyard beekeeper, defend your hives against attack.
The parasitic mite Varroa destructor can hitch a ride on the back of a honeybee. Cornelia Sattler
Know your enemy
Varroa was first detected in Australia at the NSW Port of Newcastle in June 2022.
The mite is now widely established in NSW and in Queensland between Toowoomba and Brisbane.
It was detected in Victoria, North-West of Melbourne in February and the ACT earlier this month.
The varroa invasion appears to be making hives more susceptible to the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida). This species arrived in 2002.
The beetle thrives in warm, humid conditions and lays its eggs inside hives. The larvae feed on honey and wax, turning once-thriving hives into a foul, fermented mess. Beekeepers call this a “slime-out” — and it’s just as bad as it sounds.
The deadly one-two punch
A healthy bee colony can usually defend itself against beetles. But when bees are weakened by varroa mites, they’re far less capable of resisting a beetle invasion.
This deadly one-two punch has already devastated many beekeepers in NSW. One commercial beekeeper reported:
I had large infestations of mites. And then following the mite, I got the boom of the hive beetles. I probably lost 30 hives to beetles.
As varroa mites weaken a bee colony, other parasites — like the small hive beetle seen here — can invade and cause further damage. Cornelia Sattler
What to do if you suspect an infestation?
The number of registered recreational beekeepers in Australia is growing. In 2019, there were around 27,800 registered hobbyists. By 2023, that number had jumped to over 47,000. Backyard beekeepers also contribute A$260 million to the economy.
Varroa represents a major threat to every Australian honey producer, so here’s a few tips.
Inspect your hives at least once a month. If larvae appear to be tunnelling through honeycomb, or the honey appears fermented, these are signs beetles may be present.
It’s difficult to detect mites visually, especially when there are few mites present. That’s where monitoring techniques come in. Typically, 300 bees are placed in ethanol or icing sugar and shaken until mites fall off. This allows beekeepers to not only detect the mites but also to count them.
Report mites to the relevant state authorities. Failure to do so can result in fines.
Immediately treat the infested hive and move it at least ten metres away from any others.
Chemicals called miticides can kill varroa mites and knock the population down. But some beekeepers report side effects, including queen loss, so be prepared to replace queens.
We’ve experienced a lot of queenless hives. I don’t know whether that’s from treatments […] it might be just coincidence, but I’m hearing a lot of other beekeepers having the same problem.
Varroa mites feed on bee larvae, so caging the queen and taking a short break from brood production can reduce the mite population. Mites prefer male bee larvae, so removing these can help.
These control methods are effective, though labour-intensive, and potentially suitable for backyard beekeepers. They can lessen the need for chemical treatments — slowing the evolution of resistance to miticides.
Protection against mites and beetles
To prevent your backyard hives being infested by mites or beetles:
keep colonies well fed, so they don’t rob other colonies and catch their parasites
help bees recognise hives, so they don’t enter the wrong colony with varroa mites on their back (paint hives, space them apart by a few meters, ideally 10m)
reduce the size of hive entrances to help bees block access to intruders
regularly check that your beetle traps are still working, as bees often block the holes that let the beetles into the traps with tree resin
fill the cracks where beetles hide.
How consumers can help
Australians can support the nation’s beekeepers in a few simple ways. Buy 100% Australian honey and hive products from trusted, local sources.
Sugar can easily be swapped for honey in most recipes and honey is a great way to sweeten tea.
When substituting sugar for honey, it’s worth noting honey tastes sweeter so you might want to use less. Honey also contains 18% water, so you may need to reduce the amounts of other liquids in cake recipes accordingly.
Avoid imported honey and bee products to reduce the chance of bringing bee viruses into the country. Not all imported bee products are treated to kill bee viruses.
Finally, planting pollinator-friendly gardens helps to feed local bees.
Many fear mites will push beekeepers out of business. Protecting the industry requires a shift in mindset, from emergency response to long-term pest management.
With good science, community support and adaptive management, beekeepers — both commercial and backyard — can weather the storm.
Cornelia Sattler receives funding from the Ian & Shirley Norman Foundation to develop non-chemical varroa control methods.
Théotime Colin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, through an Early Career Industry Fellowship to develop non-chemical varroa control methods. He also receives funding from the Ian & Shirley Norman Foundation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney
When parents are concerned about their child’s development, they often seek an assessment to address concerns and identify any conditions, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or learning disorders.
Common worries include difficulties making friends, focusing on tasks, or meeting educational goals.
It might seem counter-intuitive but assessments are starting to focus on a child’s strengths during this process. This can create powerful opportunities to improve child and family outcomes, particularly when too much of the focus is on challenges in the family home, school and play settings.
There is, however, a lack of evidence about how to do such assessments and how certain strengths can be used in assessment.
In a new research paper, we have developed a strengths checklist for parents, carers and clinicians to more easily identify children’s skills, talents and positive qualities – and understand the type of support they need at home, school or socially.
The aim was to provide an easy way for parents and clinicians to identify strengths in children, and to provide a method for studying the role of strengths in development. This assessment can be used alongside more established assessments of challenges.
Why highlight a child’s strengths?
Focusing on a child’s strengths can have a powerful impact on children and parents. It can boost a child’s motivation, self-esteem, cognitive skills, language development, problem-solving abilities and build stronger relationships.
For parents and caregivers, it can increase their own feelings of self-worth and improve the quality of their relationship with their own children.
When parents and caregivers believe in their child’s abilities and encourage their strengths, children and families thrive.
However, there are many gaps in research about how to apply a strengths-based approach in the context of a neurodevelopmental assessment.
Currently, while the basic principle of incorporating strengths is clear, clinicians need to rely on intuition and creativity to guide their practices.
We have long needed better evidence-based methods to guide this.
This is where our research comes in
Our new study used the Sydney Child Neurodevelopment Research Registry, which aims to improve the neurodevelopmental assessment processes and the evidence for what works for families and clinicians. We asked caregivers to identify their child’s strengths on their first assessment visit.
Nearly 700 caregivers reported an average of 2.8 strengths about their children. Using these themes, we developed a child strengths checklist to use for clinical assessments.
We showed caregivers identified six categories of child strengths: cognitive and intellectual, social and interpersonal, hobbies and passions, character and personality, physical, and resilient behaviours.
Some caregivers might report that while their child had difficulty with peer interactions, they were also kind, affectionate, honest and caring.
Other caregivers described concerns about cognitive delays, but they also described how children persevered and persisted with tasks.
We asked parents and caregivers about their child’s strengths and found they fell into six categories. HopeNFPhotography/Shutterstock
Analysing the data qualitatively – where we read caregiver transcripts and extracted themes – we captured the richness and detail of unique strengths. In total, we identified 61 unique strengths.
With community representatives and clinicians, we used this to develop a strengths-based checklist we’re calling the Child Autism and Neurodevelopment Strengths Checklist, or the CANS checklist.
This type of research will provide the evidence needed to be able to implement national guidelines and to develop better evidence about how strengths can be used to improve outcomes. We want to develop best practices for combining concerns and strengths into feedback, support plans and intervention strategies.
What can caregivers and clinicians do now?
Support schemes including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) often require families to highlight what children can’t do. Still, there are some practical ways caregivers and clinicians can ensure a child’s strengths are kept front and centre.
For caregivers, along with discussing concerns, reflect on and talk with your clinicians about your child’s strengths. Make sure clinicians keep these in mind when devising supports.
For both caregivers and clinicians, it can be helpful to think about characteristics often seen as challenges – such as a strong need for routine – as also potential strengths. It may lead to new ways of supporting children. With the right environment and support, these traits can be valuable assets in a child’s development.
For clinicians, consider how a child’s strengths can inform your assessment and intervention strategies. Make sure you don’t only focus on what children can’t do or need support with.
Communicate clearly about the child’s strengths and consider how these strengths can:
support the child’s long-term development and goals. If the child thrives on routine and pays close attention to details, showing them how to embrace these strengths can teach them how to use them to reach their own goals and to be more independent
be the target of an intervention. Everyone needs to experience success. Designing activities around strengths can make intervention more enjoyable and engaging, and the effects are more likely to be long-lasting
be used to support the wellbeing of families. Helping families focus on each other’s strengths and improve the way family members talk about and support one another creates a positive environment where they can all feel valued, respected and cared for.
By focusing on strengths, we want to create more effective and personalised support for children with neurodevelopmental conditions to reach their full potential.
Building a strong, evidence-based approach will help ensure children’s strengths are consistently considered in assessments and intervention planning.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne
Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent and net overseas. He has directly linked the number of people coming into the country to high house prices, which feeds into the election’s hot button issue of cost of living:
the first and foremost interest in mind is to get young Australians into housing.
But will cutting immigration help fix the housing crisis? Or is this a smokescreen for other problems with the migration system that are not being addressed by the major parties?
Fewer permanent migrants
The Coalition is campaigning on its plans to reduce the Permanent Migration Program, from 185,000 a year to 140,000.
This is the wrong time to make such a large cut. Permanent migration, more than temporary, is critical for Australia’s economic growth. It also helps offset the ageing of the population.
For its part, Labor failed to include the permanent migration number in last month’s budget, so we have no idea about its plans if it is re-elected.
It is best for our economy when the annual migration intake is between 160,000 and 220,000. From the Gillard government until today, the Permanent Migration Program has been set by governments of both shades within that range.
Th Coalition’s proposed cut is problematic because extreme pressure is building in two visa categories that have close to 100% grant rates: Partners and Children in the Family stream and Employer Sponsored workers in the Skill stream.
If recent experience is anything to go by, the number of applications lodged by family members of Australian citizens or permanent residents will skyrocket to 110,000 by June 30. It is important to note this category is largely demand-driven. These family members have a right to permanent residence under Section 87 of The Migration Act.
Demand is also exploding in the visa category that allows employers to address labour shortages, which has a grant rate of over 98%. Almost 100,000 applications are expected in 2024–25. However, only 44,000 places have been allocated. Employers are going to be very unhappy whichever side is elected.
Given the pent-up demand, the Coalition is avoiding the tricky questions about which parts of the Permanent Program it would cut and by how much. Labor is shirking the issue altogether by not providing any target.
Dutton’s planned reduction to permanent migration numbers would have only a small impact on housing. In a normal year, 60% of grantees are already living in Australia. They won’t be adding to housing demand, because they are already here.
The numbers don’t add up
The other major category, Net Overseas Migration, includes temporary arrivals – mainly skilled workers, working holiday makers and international students. Treasury estimates 260,000 migrants in this category in 2025–26
Dutton says the Coalition would cut this number by 100,000 people and would do it “straight away, once we get into government”.
But this number is not achievable, at least not “straight away”. Arrivals can be lowered. But the number of departures will be way too low to reach the target.
The category has already fallen by 100,000 in each of the past two years. It will continue to decline gradually over the next couple of years, but not nearly as fast as the Coalition target requires.
The number of departures has been low due to the surge in temporary migrants that followed the COVID border closures. The majority of these people have valid visas until at least 2027–28. Only then, is there likely to be a flow of migrants leaving Australia.
Dutton should have said a Coalition government would reach this target in its third year, not its first. But this would not have suited the false argument that net overseas migration has a big impact on housing affordability. It’s spurious because net overseas migration largely consists of temporary residents who rarely buy houses. And both major parties have policies banning temporary residents from purchasing established properties.
New temporary migrants do have an impact on rental demand, but it’s highly localised near universities and along public transport routes. Even this demand is somewhat muted. According to 2021 Census data, a large minority (30–40%) of students and working holiday makers live in specialist accommodation or in very large households.
Problems beyond the election
Australia is facing an estimated shortfall of 130,000 housing construction workers. Both sides of politics are taking worthwhile steps to expand the number of apprentices. But the apprenticeship route is slow and likely to fall short of requirements.
We need more skilled tradies from overseas, but it’s not happening due to obstacles in the migration system. Neither side of politics seems to be looking for creative solutions. Certainly, cutting the Permanent Program is not the answer.
Another major issue is the difficulty successive governments have had in getting people to leave Australia once all their options to remain have been exhausted.
As of January 2025, there were 92,000 individuals who had been refused a final Protection Visa, but had not yet departed. This number accumulated under the previous Morrison government and has continued to expand under Labor.
Policy not politics
Undue panic over the level of net overseas migration in an election context has made a mess of Australian migration policy.
This is evidenced by the policy shambles over international education. The major parties both have plans to limit the number of foreign students, but the cap in both cases is not much below pre-COVID enrolments.
On a more positive note, both sides of politics should be commended for not allowing racism and the “otherness” of migrants to enter the debate.
But it’s time to drop the fantasy that cutting migration will help young Australians enter the housing market. This a blatant distraction from the real and tangible problems with the migration system that must be dealt with by whoever wins on May 3.
This is the seventh article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here
Peter McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Home Affairs (including its predecessors) for studies of migration issues, but not in the past decade.
As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.
Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.
While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.
But first, the extent of the problem
It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.
1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution
When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.
Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.
Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.
Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.
2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both
Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.
During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.
All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.
However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.
3. Think beyond new supply
The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.
We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.
4. Aim before shooting
Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.
Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.
The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.
5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens
As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.
For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.
Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.
But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.
The elephant in the housing policy room
At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.
Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.
By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.
Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.
Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
In the 21st century, digital technology has changed many aspects of our lives. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest newcomer, with chatbots and other AI tools changing how we learn and creating considerable philosophical and legal challenges regarding what it means to “outsource thinking”.
But the emergence of technology that changes the way we live is not a new issue. The change from analogue to digital technology began around the 1960s and this “digital revolution” is what brought us the internet. An entire generation of people who lived and worked through this evolution are now entering their early 80s.
So what can we learn from them about the impact of technology on the ageing brain? A comprehensive new study from researchers at the University of Texas and Baylor University in the United States provides important answers.
Manfred Spitzer first introduced the ‘digital dementia’ hypothesis in 2012. Marc Reichwein/Wikipedia
Published today in Nature Human Behaviour, it found no supporting evidence for the “digital dementia” hypothesis. In fact, it found the use of computers, smartphones and the internet among people over 50 might actually be associated with lower rates of cognitive decline.
According to the “digital dementia” hypothesis introduced by German neuroscientist and psychiatrist Manfred Spitzer in 2012, increased use of digital devices has resulted in an over-reliance on technology. In turn, this has weakened our overall cognitive ability.
Three areas of concern regarding the use of technology have previously been noted:
An increase in passive screen time. This refers to technology use which does not require significant thought or participation, such as watching TV or scrolling social media.
Offloading cognitive abilities to technology, such as no longer memorising phone numbers because they are kept in our contact list.
We know technology can impact how our brain develops. But the effect of technology on how our brain ages is less understood.
This new study by neuropsychologists Jared Benge and Michael Scullin is important because it examines the impact of technology on older people who have experienced significant changes in the way they use technology across their life.
The new study performed what is known as a meta-analysis where the results of many previous studies are combined. The authors searched for studies examining technology use in people aged over 50 and examined the association with cognitive decline or dementia. They found 57 studies which included data from more than 411,000 adults. The included studies measured cognitive decline based on lower performance on cognitive tests or a diagnosis of dementia.
The study found that technology use had a similarly positive effect on brain function as physical activity. l i g h t p o e t/shutterstock
A reduced risk of cognitive decline
Overall, the study found greater use of technology was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline. Statistical tests were used to determine the “odds” of having cognitive decline based on exposure to technology. An odds ratio under 1 indicates a reduced risk from exposure and the combined odds ratio in this study was 0.42. This means higher use of technology was associated with a 58% risk reduction for cognitive decline.
This benefit was found even when the effect of other things known to contribute to cognitive decline, such as socioeconomic status and other health factors, were accounted for.
Interestingly, the magnitude of the effect of technology use on brain function found in this study was similar or stronger than other known protective factors, such as physical activity (approximately a 35% risk reduction), or maintaining a healthy blood pressure (approximately a 13% risk reduction).
However, it is important to understand that there are far more studies conducted over many years examining the benefits of managing blood pressure and increasing physical activty, and the mechanisms through which they help protect our brains are far more understood.
It is also a lot easier to measure blood pressure than it is use of technology. A strength of this study is that it considered these difficulties by focusing on certain aspects of technology use but excluded others such as brain training games.
These findings are encouraging. But we still can’t say technology use causes better cognitive function. More research is needed to see if these findings are replicated in different groups of people (especially those from low and middle income countries) who were underrepresented in this study, and to understand why this relationship might occur.
A question of ‘how’ we use technology
In reality, it’s simply not feasible to live in the world today without using some form of technology. Everything from paying bills to booking our next holiday is now almost completely done online. Maybe we should instead be thinking about how we use technology.
Cognitively stimulating activities such as reading, learning a new language and playing music – particularly in early adulthood – can help protect our brains as we age.
Greater engagement with technology across our lifespan may be a form of stimulating our memory and thinking, as we adapt to new software updates or learn how to use a new smartphone. It has been suggested this “technological reserve” may be good for our brains.
Depending on how it’s used, technology can be highly stimulating for our brain. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
A rapidly changing digital world
While findings from this study show it’s unlikely all digital technology is bad for us, the way we interact and rely on it is rapidly changing
The impact of AI on the ageing brain will only become evident in future decades. However, our ability to adapt to historical technological innovations, and the potential for this to support cognitive function, suggests the future may not be all bad.
For example, advances in brain-computer interfaces offer new hope for those experiencing the impact of neurological disease or disability.
However, the potential downsides of technology are real, particularly for younger people, including poor mental health. Future research will help determine how we can capture the benefits of technology while limiting the potential for harm.
Nikki-Anne Wilson has previously received funding from the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute and the Australian Association of Gerontology.
As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.
Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.
While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.
But first, the extent of the problem
It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.
1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution
When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.
Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.
Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.
Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.
2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both
Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.
During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.
All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.
However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.
3. Think beyond new supply
The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.
We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.
4. Aim before shooting
Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.
Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.
The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.
5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens
As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.
For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.
Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.
But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.
The elephant in the housing policy room
At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.
Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.
By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.
Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.
Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says there was an “inadvertent climate of fear” affecting councils, farmers and landowners who allowed access to their land for hunting, fishing, mountain biking and horse trekking. The fear was that they would be held responsible if someone was hurt or killed on their land.
The reforms targeting landowners are part of wider changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was passed in 2015. Under section 37 of the act, a person who controls a workplace is responsible for ensuring that
the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person.
But we found just one instance of landowners being taken to court for adventure activities going wrong on their properties. This was the case against Whakaari Management Ltd, the owners of Whakaari/White Island after the 2019 eruption that claimed 22 lives and injured 25 others.
In 2024, Whakaari Management was found guilty of failing to protect visitors to the island, but that decision was overturned in February this year.
Adventure activities in New Zealand have been relatively safe, with just over 50 deaths in 35 years. Judith Lienert/Shutterstock
Responsibilities under the law
Under the current rules, responsibility for something going wrong rests with the “person conducting a business or undertaking”.
A farmer, for example, is conducting business because they own or have control of their land. This does not apply if they are renting out the land but not involved in the activity’s management or control.
In the Whakaari Management Ltd appeal the judge wrote:
To be caught by [section] 37, a [a person conducting a business or undertaking] must in fact be exercising active control or management of the workplace in a practical sense. Owning it is not enough. Making money from it is not enough. Merely being able to manage or control a workplace, but not doing so, is not enough.
Active control might include an agreement between the landowner and the activity operator to monitor conditions.
While the Whakaari case is the only one we found where a landowner has been prosecuted under the current rules, there have been a number of court cases involving adventure activity companies.
The key difference between successful and unsuccessful cases seems to be whether the business owners had the ability to influence or change what went wrong.
For example, in cases where customers of diving businesses drowned, the courts have decided the businesses did not have control of the workplace, including the sea, a lake or river.
does not and cannot control flow or conditions nor can it control who uses or goes through the rapid […] It cannot give directions in relation to it, nor exercise any authority over it.
A business owner operating a kayaking business did have control of the operational conditions and should have had a safe system of work, including checking the weather forecast.
Even under the Adventure Activities Regulations – industry specific rule passed in 2010 and updated since – the responsibility for safety in the tourism industry fell on tourism operators, not landowners.
And, from a safety perspective, the rules have been relatively successful. In the past 35 years, there have been about 52 deaths in adventure activities due to natural hazards (including the Whakaari/White Island tragedy). During the same period more than 30,000 workers died at or because of work.
But this relative safety in adventure activities has come at a cost for small businesses. Under the 2010 regulations, the average cost of mandatory audits has been around NZ$5,000 – a cost borne by the small adventure activity businesses.
If the government wants to further improve the safety of the outdoor tourism industry, then it needs to focus on making it easier and cheaper for businesses to comply with the regulations, rather than focusing on protecting landowners from a risk they never really faced.
Danaë Anderson receives funding from the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust
Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council and the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust
Chris Peace 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.
“Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow.
During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the biggest threat to the Jewish community. More so than white supremacists.
But the NZSIS has not identified Muslims as the greatest threat to national security.
In the 2023 threat environment report, NZSIS stated that it: “Does not single out any community as a threat to our country, and to do so would be a misinterpretation of the analysis.
“White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (W-IMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend.”
Religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) did not come from the Muslim community, as Dr Rainbow has also misrepresented.
The more recent 2024 NZSIS report stated: “White identity-motivated violent extremism (W-IMVE) remains the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Terrorist attack-related material and propaganda, including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and livestream footage, continue to be shared among IMVE adherents in New Zealand and abroad.”
To implicate Muslims as being the greatest threat may highlight Dr Rainbow’s own biases, racist beliefs, and political agenda. These false narratives, that have recently been strongly pushed by the US and Israel, undermine social cohesion and lead to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.
It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.
The Christchurch Mosque attacks — the most horrific act of mass violence in New Zealand’s modern history — were perpetrated not by Muslims, but against them, by an individual radicalised by white supremacist ideology.
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow . . . “It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.” Image: HRC
Since that tragedy, there have been multiple threats made against mosques, Arab New Zealanders, and Palestinian communities, many of which have received insufficient public attention or institutional response.
For a Human Rights Commissioner to overlook this context and effectively invert the victim-aggressor dynamic is not only factually inaccurate, but it also risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining the safety and dignity of communities who are already vulnerable.
Such narratives are inconsistent with the Human Rights Commission’s mandate to protect all people in New Zealand from discrimination and hate.
The dehumanisation of Muslims and Palestinians As part of Israel’s propaganda, anti-Muslim and Palestinian tropes are used to justify violence against Palestinians by framing us as barbaric, aggressive, and as a threat. We are dehumanised in order to normalise the harm they inflict on our communities which includes genocide, land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies, dispossession, and occupation.
In October 2023, Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described Palestinians as “horrible, inhuman animals” and was perplexed with the growing global concern for us.
That same month Yoav Gallant, then Israeli Defence Minister, referred to Palestinians as “human animals” when he announced Israel’s illegal and horrific siege on Gaza that included blocking water, food, medicine, and shelter to an entire population, the majority of which are children.
In making his own remarks about the Muslim community being a “threat” in New Zealand as a collective group, and labelling Palestinians being “barbaric”, Dr Stephen Rainbow has shattered the credibility of the Human Rights Commission. He has made it very clear that he is not impartial nor is he representing and protecting all communities.
Instead, Dr Rainbow is exacerbating divisions within society. This is a worrying trend that we are witnessing around the world; the de-humanising of groups to serve political agendas, retain power, or seek public support for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Dr Rainbow’s appointment also points a spotlight onto this government’s commitment to neutrality and inclusiveness in its human rights policies. Allowing a high-ranking official to make discriminatory remarks undermines New Zealand’s commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A high-ranking official should not be allowed to engage in Islamic and Palestinian racist rhetoric without consequence. The public should be questioning the morals, principles, and inclusivity of those currently in power. Our trust is being eroded.
Dr Stephen Rainbow’s comments can also be seen as a breach of human rights principles, as he is supposed to uphold equality and non-discrimination. Yet his beliefs seem to be peppered with racism, often falsely based on religion, ethnicity, and race.
Foreign influence in New Zealand This incident also shines accountability and concerns for foreign influence and propaganda seeping into New Zealand. The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) has published articles that some perceive as dehumanising toward Palestinians.
“The Left has found a new underdog to replace the Jews — the Palestinians — in spite of the fact that the treatment of gay people, women, and political opponents wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.”
By publicising these comments, The Israel Institute of New Zealand signalled its support of these offensive and racist serotypes. Such statements risk reinforcing a narrative that portrays Palestinians as inherently violent, uncivilised, and unworthy of basic rights and dignity.
This kind of rhetoric contributes to what many describe as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and it warrants public scrutiny, especially when shared by organisations involved in shaping public discourse.
Importantly, the NZSIS 2024 threat report stated that “Inflammatory and violent language online can target anyone, although most appears directed towards those from already marginalised minority communities, or those affected by globally significant conflicts or events, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.”
Other statements and reposts published online by the IINZ on their X account include:
“Muslims are getting killed, is Israel involved? No. How many casualties? Under 100,00, who cares? Why is this even on the news? Over 100,000. Oh, that’s too bad, what’s for dinner?” (12 February 2024)
“Fact. Gaza isn’t ‘ancestral Palestinian land’. We’ve been here long before them, and we’ll still be here long after the latest propaganda campaign.” (12 February 2024)
Palestinian society was also described as being “a violent, terror-supporting, Jew-hating society with genocidal aspirations.” (16 February 2025)
The “estimate of Hamas casualties, the civilian-to-combat death ratio could be as low as 1:1. This could be historically low for urban warfare.” (21 February 2025)
“There has never been a country called Palestine.” (25 February 2025)
Even showing a picture of Gaza before Israel’s bombing campaign with a caption saying, “Open air prison”. Next to it a picture of a completely destroyed Gaza with a caption that says “Victory.” (23 February 2025)
“Palestinian society in Gaza is in my eyes little more than a death loving cult of murderers and criminals of the lowest kind.” (28 February 2025)
Anti-Palestinian bias and racism Portraying Muslims and Palestinians as a threat and extremist reflects both Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and potential racism. These statements risk dehumanising Palestinians and are typical of the settler colonial narrative used to erase indigenous populations by denying our history, identity and legal claim.
The IINZ has published content that many see as mocking the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, which is not only ethically questionable but can be seen as a complete lack of empathy.
And posting the horrific images of a completely destroyed Gaza, appears to revel in the suffering of others and contradicts basic ethical norms, such as decency and compassion.
There also appears to be a common theme among pro-Israeli organisations, not just the IINZ, that cast negative connotations on our national symbols including our Palestinian flag and keffiyeh.
In an article on the IINZ webpage, titled “A justified war”, they write “chorus of protesters wearing keffiyehs, waving their Palestinian and terrorist flags, and shouting about Israel’s alleged war crimes.”
It seemingly places the Palestinian flag — an internationally recognised national symbol– alongside so-called “terrorist flags,” suggesting an equivalence between Palestinian identity and terrorism. Many view this language as dehumanising and inflammatory, erasing the legitimate national and cultural characteristics of Palestinians and feeding into harmful stereotypes.
The Palestinian flag represents a people, their identity, and national aspirations.
There is nothing wrong with our keffiyeh, it is part of our national dress. The negative connotations of Palestinian cultural symbols have to stop, including vilifying other MPs or supporters who wear it in solidarity.
This is happening all too often in New Zealand and must be called out and addressed. Our keffiyeh is not just a scarf — it is a symbol of our Palestinian identity, our resistance, and our rich, historic and deeply rooted cultural heritage.
Pro-Israeli groups attack it because they aim to delegitimise Palestinian identity and resistance by associating it with violence, terrorism, or extremism.
In 2024, ISESCO and UNESCO both recognised the keffiyeh as an essential part of their Intangible Cultural Heritage lists as a way of safeguarding Palestinian cultural heritage and reinforcing its historical and symbolic importance.
As a safeguarded cultural artifact, much like indigenous dress and other traditional attire, attempts to ban or demonize it are acts of cultural erasure and need to be called out as such and dealt with accordingly.
In the same IINZ article titled “A Justified War”, the authors present arguments that appear to defend Israel’s military actions in Gaza, including the targeting of civilians.
Many within the community (most of us have been affected), including survivors and those with direct ties to the region, have found the article deeply distressing and feel that it lacks compassion for the victims of the ongoing violence, and the framing and tone of the piece have raised serious ethical concerns, especially as some statements are factually incorrect.
The New Zealand Palestinian communities affected by this unimaginable genocide are suffering. Our family members are being killed and are at threat daily from Israel’s aggression and illegal war.
Unfortunately, much rhetoric from this organisation aligns with Israeli state narratives and includes statements that some view as racist or immoral, warranting further scrutiny from the government.
There is growing public concern over the association of Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow with the IINZ, which promotes itself as a research and advocacy body.
A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.
It is also important to remember that we are not a monolithic group. Christian Palestinians exist (I am one) as well as Muslim and historically Jewish Palestinians. Christian communities have lived in Palestine for two thousand years.
This is also not a religious conflict, as many pro-Israeli groups wish the world to believe, and it is not complex. It is one of colonialism, dispossession, and human rights. A history that New Zealand is all too familiar with.
“A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.” Image: HRC screenshot APR
The need for accountability Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s inaction and disrespectful response, claiming that a staunchly pro-Israeli supporter can be impartial and will be “very careful” from now on, hints that he may also support some forms of racism, in this case against Muslims and Palestinians.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith . . . “There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately?” Image: NZ Parliament
You cannot address only some groups who are discriminated against but then ignore others, or accept excuses for racist, intolerable actions or statements. This is not justice.
This is the application of selective principles, enforced and underpinned by political agendas, foreign influence, and racism. Does Goldsmith understand that justice is as much about human rights, fairness and accountability as it is about laws?
Without accountability, there is no justice at all, or perhaps he too is confused or uncertain about his role, as much as Dr Rainbow seems oblivious to his?
There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately? If Dr Rainbow had said that Jews were the biggest threat to Muslims or that Israelis were the biggest threat to Palestinians, would this government and Goldsmith have sat back and said, “he didn’t mean it, it was a mistake, and he has apologised”?
Questions New Zealanders should be asking are, what kind of Human Rights Commissioner speaks of entire peoples this way? What kind of minister, like Paul Goldsmith, looks at that and does very little?
What kind of Government claims to champion justice, while turning a blind eye to genocide? This is betraying the very idea of human rights itself.
Although we are a small country here in New Zealand, we have remained strong by upholding and standing by our principles. We said no to apartheid in South Africa. We said no to nuclear weapons in the Pacific. We said no to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And we must now say no to dehumanisation — anywhere. Are we a nation that upholds justice or do we sit on the sidelines while the darkest times in modern history envelopes us all?
The attacks against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop. We have already faced horrific acts of violence against us here in New Zealand and currently in Palestine. We need support and humanity, not dehumanisation, demonisation and cruelty. This is not what New Zealand is about, we must do better together.
There needs to be a formal enquiry and policy review to see if structural biases exist in New Zealand’s Human Rights institutions. This should also be done across some government bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Immigration NZ, to determine if there has been discrimination or inequality in the handling of humanitarian visas and how the Education Ministry has handled the complaints of anti-Palestinian discrimination at schools.
Communities have particular concern at how the curriculum in many schools deals with the creation of the state of Israel but is silent on Palestinian history.
Public figures should be held to a higher standard, with consequences for spreading racially charged rhetoric.
The Human Rights Commission needs to rebuild trust in our multicultural New Zealand society. The only way this can be done is through fair and just measures that include enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, true inclusivity and action when there is an absence of these.
We are living in a moment where silence is complicity. Where apathy is betrayal.
This is a test of whether New Zealand, Minister Goldsmith and this government truly uphold human rights for all, or only for some.
A leaked “working paper” on New Caledonia’s future political status is causing concern on the local stage and has prompted a “clarification” from the French government’s Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls.
Details of the document, which was supposed to remain confidential, have been widely circulated online over the past few days.
Valls said earlier the confidentiality of the document was supposed to ensure expected results of ongoing talks would not be jeopardised.
However, following the leak, Valls said in a release on Friday that, for the time being, it was nothing more than a “working paper”.
The document results from earlier rounds of talks when Valls was in Nouméa during his previous trips in February and March 2025.
Valls is due to return to New Caledonia on April 29 for another round of talks and possibly “negotiations” and more political talks are ongoing behind closed doors.
French Minister of Overseas Manuel Valls (front left) greets the New Caledonian territorial President Alcide Ponga (right) as Senator Georges Naturel looks on during his arrival for a military honours ceremony in Nouméa in February. Image: AFP/RNZ Pacific
He has denied that it can be regarded as a “unilateral proposal” from Paris.
The latest roundtable session was on Friday, April 11, held remotely via a video conference between Valls in Paris and all political stakeholders (both pro-France and pro-independence parties) in Nouméa.
All tendencies across the political spectrum have reaffirmed their strong and sometimes “non-negotiable” respective stances.
Parties opposed to independence, who regard New Caledonia as being part of France, have consistently maintained that the results of the latest three referendums on self-determination — held in 2018, 2020 and 2021 — should be respected. They reject the notion of independence.
The last referendum in December 2021 was, however, largely boycotted by the pro-independence movement and indigenous Kanak voters.
On the pro-independence side, the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS, dominated by the Union Calédonienne) is announcing a “convention” on April 26 — just three days before Valls’s return — to decide on whether it should now fully engage in negotiations proper.
In a news conference last week, the FLNKS was critical of the French-suggested approach, saying it would only commit if they “see the benefits” and that the document was “patronising”.
Two other pro-independence parties — the PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and the UPM (Union Progressiste en Mélanésie) — have distanced themselves from the FLNKS, which they see as too radical under Union Calédonienne’s influence and dominance) and hold a more moderate view.
PALIKA held a general meeting late last week to reaffirm that, while they too were regarding the path to sovereignty as their paramount goal, they were already committed to participating in future “negotiations” since “all topics have been taken into account” (in the working document).
They are favour an “independence association” pathway.
Carefully chosen words In his release on Friday, Valls said the main pillars of future negotiations were articulated around the themes of:
“democracy and the rule of law”, a “decolonisation process”, the right to self-determination, a future “fundamental law” that would seal New Caledonia’s future status (and would then, if locally approved, be ratified by French Parliament and later included in the French Constitution);
the powers of New Caledonia’s three provinces (including on tax and revenue collection matters); and
a future New Caledonia citizenship (and its conditions of eligibility) with the associated definition of who meets the requirements to vote at local elections.
Citizenship On acquiring New Caledonia citizenship, a consensus seems to emerge on the minimum time of residence: it would be “10 to 15” years with other criteria such as an “exam” to ascertain the candidate’s knowledge and respect of cultural “values and specificities”.
Every person born in New Caledonia, children and spouses of qualified citizens, would also automatically qualify for New Caledonia’s citizenship.
Power-sharing On power-sharing, the draft also touches on the “sovereign” powers (international relations, defence, law and order, justice, currency) which would remain within the French realm, but in a stronger association for New Caledonia.
All other powers, regarded as “non-sovereign”, would remain under direct control of New Caledonia as they have already been transferred, gradually, to New Caledonia, over the past 27 years, under the Nouméa Accord.
New Caledonia would also be consulted on all negotiations related to the Pacific islands region and would get representation at European Union level.
Local diplomats would also be trained under France’s Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs.
Under the Nouméa Accord, the training process was already initiated more than 10 years ago with New Caledonian representatives appointed and hosted at French embassies in the region — Fiji, New Zealand, Australia.
A local “strategic committee” would also be set up on defence matters.
However, despite long-time FLNKS demands, this would not allow for a seat at the United Nations.
In terms of currency, the present French Pacific Francs (CFP, XPF) would be abolished for a new currency that would remain pegged to the Euro, provided France’s other two Pacific territories (French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna — which are also using the CFP) agree.
Reinforced provincial powers A new proposal, in terms of reinforced provincial powers, would be to grant each of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and Loyalty Islands) the capacity — currently held by New Caledonia’s government — to generate and collect its own taxes.
Each province would then re-distribute their collected tax revenues to the central government and municipalities.
This is also reported to be a sensitive point during the talks, since about 80 percent of New Caledonia’s wealth is located in the Southern Province, which also generates more than 90 percent of all of New Caledonia’s tax revenues.
This is perceived as a concession to pro-France parties, which are calling for an “internal federation” model for New Caledonia, a prospect strongly opposed by pro-independence parties who are denouncing what they liken to some kind of “partition” for the French Pacific dependency.
In the currently discussed project, the representation at the Congress (Parliament) of New Caledonia would be revised among the three provinces to better reflect their respective weight according to demographic changes.
The representation would be re-assessed and possibly modified after each population census.
Under the proposed text, New Caledonia’s government would remain based on the notion of “collegiality”.
Future referendum — no more just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to independence The current working paper, on the right to self-determination, suggests that any future referendum on self-determination no longer has a specified deadline, but should take place after a “stabilisation and reconstruction” phase.
It would no longer ask the binary question of “yes” or “no” to independence and full sovereignty, but rather seek the approval of a “comprehensive project”.
To activate a referendum, the approval of at least three fifths of New Caledonia’s 54-seat Congress would be needed.
The Congress’s current makeup, almost equally split in two between pro-France and pro-independence parties, this 3/5th threshold could only be found if there is a consensual vote beyond party lines.
Some of the FLNKS’s earlier demands, like having its president Christian Téin (elected in absentia in August 2024 ) part of the talks, now seem to have been dropped.
Téin was arrested in June 2024 for alleged involvement in the May 2024 insurrectional riots that caused 14 dead (including two French gendarmes), hundreds of injured, thousands of jobless and the destruction of several hundred businesses for a total estimated damage of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.3 billion).
Four days after his arrest, Téin was transferred from New Caledonia to mainland France.
Although he is still remanded in custody pending his trial (for alleged involvement in organised criminal-related acts), his case was recently transferred from the jurisdiction of judges in Nouméa to mainland France magistrates.
Union Calédonienne president and pro-independence front man Emmanuel Tjibaou told public broadcaster NC la 1ère yesterday he was in regular contact with Téin from his jail in Mulhouse (northeastern France).
Another recent development that could also be perceived as a concession to the FLNKS is that last week, France announced the replacement of French High commissioner Louis Le Franc, France’s representative and man in charge in Nouméa during last year’s riots.
‘We are facing a decisive moment’, says Valls Valls said he remained hopeful that despite “all positions remaining at present still far from each other . . . evolutions are still possible”.
“I reaffirm the (French) State’s full commitment to pursue this approach, in the spirit of the Matignon and Nouméa Accords (signed respectively in 1988 and 1998) to build together a united, appeased and prosperous New Caledonia,” Valls concluded.
“We are facing a decisive moment for the future of New Caledonia, which is confronted with a particularly grave economic and social situation. Civil peace remains fragile.”
The much sought-after agreement, which has been at the centre of political talks since they resumed in early 2025 after a three-year hiatus, is supposed to replace the Nouméa Accord from 1998.
The 1998 pact, which outlines the notion of gradual transfer of sovereign powers from France to new Caledonia, but also the notion of “common destiny”, stipulates that after three referendums on self-determination resulting in a majority of “no”, then the political partners are to meet and “discuss the situation thus created”.
Determination, anxiety and hope On all sides of the political landscape, ahead of any outcome for the crucial talks, the current atmosphere is a mix of determination, anxiety and hope, with a touch of disillusionment.
The pro-independence movement’s Emmanuel Tjibaou has to manage a sometimes radical base.
He told NC la 1ère that the main objective remained “the path to sovereignty”.
Within the pro-France camp, there is also defiance towards Vall’s approach and expected results.
Among their ranks, one lingering angst, founded or not, is to see an agreement being concluded that would not respond to their expectations of New Caledonia remaining part of France.
This worst-case scenario, in their view, would bring back sad memories of Algeria’s pre-independence process decades ago.
On 4 June 1958, in the midst of its war against Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN), French President General De Gaulle, while on a visit to Algiers, shouted a resounding “Je vous ai compris!” (“I have understood you”) to a crowd of cheering pro-France and French Algerians who were convinced at the time that their voice had been heard in favour of French Algeria.
On 19 March 1962, after years of a bloody war, the Evian Accords were signed, paving the way for Algeria’s independence on July 3.
“I had to take precautions, I had to proceed progressively and this is how we made it”, De Gaulle explained to the French daily Le Monde in 1966.
In the meantime, in an atmosphere of fear and violence, an estimated 700,000 French citizens from Algeria were “repatriated” by boat to mainland France.
As an alternative posed to French nationals at the time, FLN’s slogan was “la valise ou le cercueil” (“the suitcase or the coffin”).
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Political leaders’ kids are routinely put on display to share the glory or the pain of election night. Earlier, they’re often at campaign launches to “humanise” the candidates.
Peter Dutton pulled out all stops with the family for his Sunday launch. Tom, Harry and Rebecca were not just there in person, but “virtually” too, with a video showing dad hearing messages from the family.
Rebecca went to “the potato head thing”, saying it was “all a bit of a joke to us. We still often call you Mr Potato head.” Dutton replied that “I’m pretty relaxed. I can give back as good as I get.” Hearing Harry on the video, he judged his son “sounded a bit croaky […] He might have been out late last night.”
And so it went. All nice and safe, in a campaign sense. But Dutton should have left it at that.
Instead, on Monday Harry, who is an apprentice carpenter, joined his father on the campaign trail, to help him sell the message about the unaffordability of housing.
Harry, it turns out, is an aspiring house buyer, which is not surprising. After all, his dad bought his first house at age 19, and is proud of the fact, often mentioning it in soft interviews.
Harry told reporters, “I am saving up for a house and so is my sister, Beck, and a lot of my mates, but as you probably heard, it’s almost impossible to get in – in the current state,” Harry said.
“So I mean we’re saving like mad, but it doesn’t look like we’ll get there in the near future. But we’d love that to change.”
One has to wonder about the judgement of the Liberal strategists. Dutton has owned a lot of property over the years, and is well off. Did no one anticipate that the obvious questioning from the hungry media would be: won’t the bank of mum and dad help Harry and Rebecca?
Of course it came.
One questioner asked, “Are you planning to act as the bank of mum and dad like so many Australian families are having to do?” Dutton answered generally – that he didn’t want a situation where these were the only kids that could buy houses.
Then later came the explicit question: “You brought your own son Harry out here. He spoke about how hard it is to save for a deposit. So in that case, you’re doing pretty well yourself – why won’t you support him a bit and give him a bit of help with getting his house?”
Dutton did not address that sticky one, saying rather that he hadn’t finished answering the previous question.
Politicians perennially complain about how hard the political life is for their families.
Indeed. Sometimes it’s best to leave the kids at home.
Albanese dodges question about Plibersek’s future portfolio
This is the second campaign in a row that’s put a spotlight on the strained relationship between Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek.
In 2022 observers asked “where’s Tanya?” when Plibersek, one of Labor’s most popular retail politicians, seemed to have a low profile. Plibersek produced evidence of her intense round of campaigning, but it was still clear she was being underused.
Albanese and Plibersek are rivals in the left from way back. After the 2022 win, instead of appointing her education minister, as she’d expected, the new PM put her into environment, where she’s had to rule on fossil fuel projects and other matters especially tricky for someone from the left. Late last year, Albanese intervened when Plibersek thought she was headed to a deal on the Nature Positive legislation, declaring the Senate numbers were not there. More compelling with him was pressure from Western Australian Premier Roger Cook, who was facing an election.
On Monday Plibersek found herself having to explain an uncomfortable moment that had caught media attention at Sunday’s Labor launch.
At these gatherings a great deal of kissing and hugging goes on, even among politicians who don’t like each other much. So Plibersek was about to hug Albanese, but he grabbed her hands instead.
/
Asked on Monday Morning TV about what was described as an “awkward moment”, Plibersek explained it away, even more awkwardly. “Do you know what, I reckon we should still all be elbow bumping, because during an election campaign, the last thing you want is to catch a cold from someone. So that’s on me. I should have done the elbow bump, I reckon.”
Albanese was quizzed later about whether he’d keep Plibersek in the environment portfolio in a second-term government.
He said Plibetsek was doing a “fantastic job” and insisted she had been “a friend of mine for a long period of time”.
He didn’t comment himself on her future job, if the government is returned. Not surprising, at one level. As he says, he doesn’t want to get ahead of himself. And later in the day he wouldn’t say whether Julie Collins would again be fisheries minister.
But, given it was Plibersek, his non-answer added to the awkwardness. On the other hand, you’d think Plibersek would probably want out of the environment portfolio, provided that didn’t mean another less-than-ideal post.
A third debate coming
Albanese and Dutton have agreed to a third debate – on Channel 7 on April 27. The second debate, hosted by the ABC, is on Wednesday.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
-A.jpg){kind=link}
