Many budget measures are aimed at easing cost of living. The headline announcement is tax cuts: everyone will get one, but not until July 1 2026. Other major spends are on Medicare, medicines and energy bill rebates. If this seems familiar, it’s because the government has already announced most of these measures before budget day.
Your tax cut calculator
Key announcements:
Read the full analysis from our experts:
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A Fiji-based Pacific solidarity group supporting the indigenous Palestine struggle for survival against the Israeli settler colonial state has today issued a statement condemning Fiji backing for Israel.
In an open letter to the “people of Fiji”, the Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network (F4P) has warned “your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians”.
“It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”
The group said the struggle resonated with all who believed in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.
Fijians for Palestine has condemned Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government plans to open a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem with Israeli backing and has launched a “No embassy on occupied land” campaign.
The group likened the Palestine liberation struggle to Pacific self-determination campaigns in Bougainville, “French” Polynesia, Kanaky and West Papua.
“Our solidarity with the Palestinian people is a testament to our shared humanity. We believe in a world where diversity, is treated with dignity and respect.
“We dream of a future where children in Gaza can play without fear, where families can live without the shadow of war, and where the Palestinian people can finally enjoy the peace and freedom they so rightly deserve.
“We join the global voices demanding a permanent ceasefire and an end to the violence. We express our unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people.
“The Palestinian struggle is not just a regional issue; it is a testament to the resilience of a people who, despite facing impossible odds, continue to fight for their right to exist, freedom, and dignity. Their struggle resonates with all who believe in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.
“The images of destruction, the stories of families torn apart, and the cries of children caught in the crossfire are heart-wrenching. These are not mere statistics or distant news stories; these are real people with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, much like us.
“As Fijians, we have always prided ourselves on our commitment to peace, unity, and humanity. Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.
“We call on you to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people this Thursday with us, not out of political allegiance but out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.
“There can be no peace without justice, and we stand in unity with all people and territories struggling for self-determination and freedom from occupation. The Pacific cannot be an Ocean of Peace without freedom and self determination in Palestine, West Papua, Kanaky and all oppressed territories.
“To the Fijian people, please know that your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians. It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.
Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.
Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.
What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?
From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.
Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.
In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.
Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.
At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.
If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.
More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.
How are classified conversations usually conducted?
During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.
And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.
Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.
These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.
In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.
I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.
If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.
Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?
The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.
The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?
The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.
So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.
Jennifer Parker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.
Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.
You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.
We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.
For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.
Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.
On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.
In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.
The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.
As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.
So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.
These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.
When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.
Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.
As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)
This same story may well play out on land.
What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.
The oceans off Heard and McDonald Islands are now better protected – but was this the easy option? Pictured: Heard Island from satellite. zelvan/Shutterstock
Saving here, clearing there
On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.
Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.
Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.
If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.
James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.
Where would we be without knowledge? Everything from the building of spaceships to the development of new therapies has come about through the creation, sharing, and validation of knowledge. It is arguably our most valuable human commodity.
From clay tablets to electronic tablets, technology has played an influential role in shaping human knowledge. Today we stand on the brink of the next knowledge revolution. It is one as big as — if not more so — the invention of the printing press, or the dawning of the digital age.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a revolutionary new technology able to collect and summarise knowledge from across the internet at the click of a button. Its impact is already being felt from the classroom to the boardroom, the laboratory to the rainforest.
Looking back to look forward, what do we expect generative AI to do to our knowledge practices? And can we foresee how this may change human knowledge, for better or worse?
The power of the printing press
While printing technology had a huge immediate impact, we are still coming to grips with the full scale of its effects on society. This impact was largely due to its ability to spread knowledge to millions of people.
Of course, human knowledge existed before the printing press. Non-written forms of knowledge date back tens of thousands of years, and researchers are today demonstrating the advanced skills associated with verbal knowledge.
In turn, scribal culture played an integral role in ancient civilisations. Serving as a means to preserve legal codes, religious doctrines, or literary texts, scribes were powerful people who traded hand-written commodities for kings and nobles.
But it was the printing press – specifically the process of using movable type allowing for much cheaper and less labour-intensive book production – that democratised knowledge. This technology was invented in Germany around 1440 by goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg. Often described as the speaking of one-to-many, printing technology was able to provide affordable information to entire populations.
The invention of the computer – and more importantly the connecting of multiple computers across the globe via the internet – saw the arrival of another knowledge revolution.
Often described as a new reality of speaking many-to-many, the internet provided a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn.
In the internet’s early days, USENET bulletin boards were digital chatrooms that allowed for unmediated crowd-sourced information exchange.
As internet users increased, the need for content regulation and moderation also grew. However, the internet’s role as the world’s largest open-access library has remained.
Computers set in motion another knowledge revolution, providing a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn at an unprecedented scale. Masini/Shutterstock
The promise of generative AI
Generative AI refers to deep-learning models capable of generating human-like outputs, including text, images, video and audio. Examples include ChatGPT, Dall-E and DeepSeek.
Today, this new technology promises to function as our personal librarian, reducing our need to search for a book, let alone open its cover. Visiting physical libraries for information has been unnecessary for a while, but generative AI means we no longer need to even scroll through lists of electronic sources.
Trained on hundreds of billions of human words, AI can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods. A user can pose any question to their AI assistant, and for the most part, will receive a competent answer. Generative AI can sometimes, however, “hallucinate”, meaning it will deliver unreliable or false information, instead of admitting it doesn’t know the answer.
Generative AI can also personalise its outputs, providing renditions in whatever language and tone required. Marketed as the ultimate democratiser of knowledge, the adaptation of information to suit a person’s interests, pace, abilities, and style is extraordinary.
But, as an increasingly prevalent arbitrator of our information needs, AI marks a new phase in the history of the relationship between knowledge and technology.
It challenges the very concept of human knowledge: its authorship, ownership and veracity. It also risks forfeiting the one-to-many revolution that was the printing press and the many-to-many potential that is the internet. In so doing, is generative AI inadvertently reducing the voices of many to the banality of one?
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods. Ascannio/Shutterstock
Using generative AI wisely
Most knowledge is born of debate, contention, and challenge. It relies on diligence, reflexivity and application. The question of whether generative AI promotes these qualities is an open one, and evidence is so far mixed.
More generally, research on “digital amnesia” tells us that we store less information in our heads today than we did previously due to our growing reliance on digital devices. And, relatedly, people and organisations are now increasingly dependent on digital technology.
Using history as inspiration, more than 2,500 years ago the Greek philosopher Socrates said that true wisdom is knowing when we know nothing.
Sarah Vivienne Bentley 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.
Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.
So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.
Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.
Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.
While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.
But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.
Who investigates wage theft?
Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.
It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.
Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.
The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.
A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.
But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:
Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.
Former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer’s experience of wage theft as a refugee inspired him to change the law. Getty Images
How Australia does it
On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.
First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.
Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.
Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.
A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.
The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.
This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.
Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge
The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.
The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.
If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.
Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.
Irene Nikoloudakis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Papua New Guinea government has admitted to using a technology that it says was “successfully tested” to block social media platforms, particularly Facebook, for much of the day yesterday.
Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the “test” was done under the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2024, and sought to address the growing concerns over hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content online.
Tsiamalili did not specify what kind of tech was used, but said it was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC), the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA), and various internet service providers.
“We are not attempting to suppress free speech or restrict our citizens from expressing their viewpoints,” Tsiamalili said.
“However, the unchecked proliferation of fake news, hate speech, pornography, child exploitation, and incitement to violence on platforms such as Facebook is unacceptable.
“These challenges increasingly threaten the safety, dignity, and well-being of our populace.”
However, government agencies responsible for communications and ICT, including NICTA, said they were not aware.
‘Confidence relies on transparency’ “Public confidence in our digital governance relies on transparency and consistency in how we approach online regulation,” NICTA chief executive Kilakupa Gulo-Vui said.
“It is essential that all key stakeholders, including NICTA, law enforcement, telecommunications providers, and government agencies, collaborate closely to ensure that any actions taken are well-understood and properly executed.”
He said that while maintaining national security was a priority, the balance between safety and digital freedom must be carefully managed.
Gulo-Vui said NICTA would be addressing this matter with the Minister for ICT to ensure NICTA’s role continued to align with the government’s broader policy objectives, while fostering a cohesive and united approach to digital regulation.
The Department of Information Communication and Technology (DICT) Secretary, Steven Matainaho, also stated his department was not aware of the test but added that the police have powers under the new domestic terrorism laws.
Papua New Guinea’s recently introduced anti-terror laws are aimed at curbing both internal and external security threats.
Critics warn of dictatorial control However, critics of the move say the test borders on dictatorial control.
An observer of Monday’s events, Lucas Kiap, said the goal of combating hate speech and exploitation was commendable, but the approach risks paving way for authoritarian overreach.
“Where is PNG headed? If the government continues down this path, it risks trading democracy for control,” he said.
Many social media users, however, appeared to outdo the government, with many downloading and sharing Virtual Area Network (VPN) apps and continuing to post on Facebook.
“Hello from Poland,” one user said.
East Sepik Governor Allan Bird said today that the country’s anti-terrorism law could target anyone because “the definition of a terrorist is left to the Police Minister to decide”.
‘Designed to take away our freedoms’ “During the debate on the anti-terrorism bill in Parliament, I pointed out that the law was too broad and it could be used against innocent people,” he wrote on Facebook.
He said government MPs laughed at him and used their numbers to pass the bill.
“Yesterday, the Police Minister used the Anti-terrorism Act to shut down Facebook. That was just a test, that was step one,” Governor Bird said.
“There is no limit to the powers the Minister of Police can exercise under this new law. It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms.
“We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” he added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Only five days after the arrest warrant against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was issued, he was apprehended and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The prompt action – and the fact he is the first former Asian head of state before the ICC – have been heralded as “a pivotal moment for the court”.
While this is a rare success story in the court’s tumultuous history, many challenges remain. The successful arrest of one defendant will unfortunately do little to change negative perceptions of the court or remove the many obstacles it faces in prosecuting cases.
A long history of criticism
The ICC was conceived as a “court of last resort” in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established it. The aim was to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression in cases where a state’s domestic courts refuse or are unable to do so.
Shortly after it began its work in 2002, however, the ICC faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa.
In more recent years, it has also been criticised for its limited effectiveness, its perceived hypocrisy, and a lack of support from major powers, such as the US, China and Russia, which are not members.
The court has long faced a public relations crisis it may never be able to resolve. When it does not investigate a potential case, it is said to be ineffective. And when it does initiate investigations, it is often said to be biased or acting beyond its capabilities.
These two cases have been among the court’s most controversial. Critics say the ICC lacks jurisdiction because:
the alleged crimes did not occur in their own states
their states are not parties to the Rome Statute
the UN Security Council did not refer these cases to the ICC for investigation.
Others have accused the court of selective prosecution and bias for pursuing a case against Netanyahu, specifically, instead of prioritising cases in states run by dictators, such as Syria.
And some complain the court should be focusing on crimes allegedly committed by Western leaders in places like Iraq.
Indicting leaders of states raises additional legal challenges. International law dictates that heads of state enjoy immunity in other states’ courts – unless this immunity is expressly waived by their own governments.
The ICC defends its actions as fair. It argues it does have jurisdiction in the cases against Putin and Netanyahu because the alleged crimes took place in Ukraine and Palestine, two states who have explicitly accepted its jurisdiction.
And Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over people with state immunity, although it’s debatable whether this must be first waived for leaders of states not party to the Rome Statute.
Cooperation remains key
The ICC is not only constrained by these complex legal questions, but also by the limited cooperation of states around the world.
It relies on close cooperation with its 125 state parties, among others. But some states have been reluctant or even refused to cooperate with the court in executing the arrest warrants of controversial figures.
For example, Putin was not arrested when he visited Mongolia, an ICC member, last year, in part, because Mongolia relies heavily on Russian energy. South Africa similarly refused to arrest Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir when he visited in 2015.
Even when state parties do cooperate, the political fallout can impact the court’s reputation.
Following Duterte’s arrest last week, a Filipino senator (the sister of the current president) launched an urgent investigation to ensure due process was followed and Duterte’s legal rights were upheld and protected. She acknowledged the arrest has “has deeply divided the nation”.
The lack of support from the US – arguably, still the world’s most powerful democracy – remains a perennial problem, as well.
While the US has generally supported the court’s mandate over the years, it has been wary of its jurisdiction over American citizens and those of its allies accused of crimes. Last month, President Donald Trump authorised new sanctions against ICC officials in an attempt to paralyse the international organisation.
Although 79 states did declare their support for the ICC following the sanctions, the Trump adminstration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction, legitimacy and authority has had significant consequences for its operations.
It remains to be seen how the case against Duterte will play out. Securing a conviction is not assured.
However, his arrest demonstrates the court can fulfil its mandate and remain a relevant force in the fight against the gravest of crimes. It is also a significant moment for the families of those killed during Duterte’s rule, who have long sought justice for their loved ones.
Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If you’ve ever picked up your child from childcare and wondered if they’re living a double life, you’re not alone.
Parents often receive rave reports from educators about kids’ adventurous eating habits, only to face a different reality at home, when the child who devoured a veggie-packed curry at lunchtime morphs into a fussy eater refusing anything but dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets.
While this confusing behaviour is frustrating, it’s completely normal.
Genetics. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors developed physiological responses for survival that are embedded in our genes and influence taste preferences from birth. These include developing “food fussiness” – a natural aversion to unfamiliar foods and bitter flavours to avoid ingesting toxins – and learning to seek palatable foods rich in natural sugars, fat and protein to avoid starvation.
Eating environment. As kids grow, their surroundings at mealtimes – namely carers’ eating habits, feeding practices, routines and social cues conveyed – shape what they actually eat and enjoy.
The interaction between these two factors drives how fussy kids will be, their likes and dislikes and how open they are to new foods.
Why eating behaviour differs between childcare and home
The simple reason kids may eat differently at childcare comes down to the eating environment. Here’s what typically makes childcare different to home:
1. Childcare has strict routines
Childcare runs to a strict schedule, teaching kids to expect meals and snacks at set times and places. Meals are also planned to ensure kids sit down to eat when they’re hungry, and food is offered for a limited time – factors that help kids focus on eating.
When mealtimes are less structured at home, it often leads to kids snacking, reducing their appetite at dinnertime. Distractions, like screens, also take kids’ attention away from eating.
2. Kids are exposed to peer influence and different role models
Kids are natural copycats, so seeing friends enjoying healthy food makes them more willing to try it. This behaviour is supported by a study showing that seating a preschooler who dislikes a vegetable next to a peer who enjoys it can gradually shift their preference, leading them to eat the previously disliked vegetable.
Additionally, the social nature of eating in a group setting encourages kids to try new foods and eat more.
Research also shows carers – who are trained to model enthusiasm for nutritious foods – shape healthy eating habits and help kids learn other valuable behaviours like table manners.
At home, time constraints and limited knowledge can make it harder for parents to model these same behaviours.
3. Childcare regularly exposes kids to new foods
At childcare, meals are carefully planned according to Australian Dietary Guidelines and are focused on exposing kids to new foods regularly and repeatedly to get them comfortable with different tastes and textures.
At home, busy family lives often lead to repetitive meal routines.
4. Kids are offered limited choices
At childcare, meals are planned with military precision and served without negotiation, teaching kids to try to eat what’s provided.
At home, mealtimes can involve high-stakes negotiations when kids refuse certain foods, leading parents to surrender and offer alternatives – a tactic that only reinforces fussy eating and teaches kids to hold out for favourite foods.
5. Kids are given some control over what they eat
Kids have very little control over their daily lives – we’re constantly telling them what to do and when they’ll do it.
However, one way kids assert control is by refusing to eat certain foods at home.
Childcare cleverly gives kids the control they seek, encouraging them to serve themselves from shared platters, making them more willing to try new foods.
6. Kids experience less attention and pressure
At home, we naturally focus on what our child is eating (and not eating) which makes mealtimes stressful for kids.
At childcare, kids don’t have an audience watching their every bite, so they feel less pressure, eat more freely and are more willing to try different foods.
Serve meals around the same time each day and establish snack times, ensuring they’re two hours before mealtimes so your child sits down hungry and ready to eat. Your routine should include putting devices away so your child’s full attention is on eating.
2. Be a positive role model
Because kids observe and mimic what they see, if you show enthusiasm for trying new foods and healthy eating your child will do the same.
3. Get creative
Take a leaf out of childcare’s book and ensure your child’s plate features different colours, textures and flavours presented in fun ways to capture and hold their interest in new foods.
And just like childcare, do this regularly, as repeated exposure is key – it can take eight to ten exposures before your child will accept eating a new food.
4. Limit food choices (but in a fun way)
Offer limited choices but in a way that gives your child some control, like serving platter-style meals where they can choose what they want.
Don’t give into food demands. While it’s tempting to offer alternatives when meals are refused, this creates more problems than it solves, reinforcing food fussiness and narrowing their diet.
5. Encourage independence
Actively involve your child in meal preparation, asking them to pick healthy recipes, help you shop and complete simple tasks like washing veggies and mixing ingredients. This can make them curious to taste the meal they’ve helped prepare.
6. Make mealtimes stress-free
Prioritise sitting down to eat as a family and ensure mealtimes are relaxed and fun – especially when you’re introducing new foods – to create positive associations with healthy eating.
Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – a clinically proven blueprint to overcoming food fussiness.
A/Professor Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and RPA Hospital and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, and the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids with Penguin Books.
This year’s Alliance Française French Film Festival showcases a diverse selection of films from blockbusters and biopics to comedies and gripping thrillers for Australian audiences.
I’ve written before about how this annual event, now in its 36th edition, is, in terms of tickets sold and films screened, the largest film festival dedicated to contemporary French cinema outside of France.
The 2025 program once more shines a spotlight on the established icons and rising stars of French cinema.
In the this year’s festival, 30% of the films are directed by women and thorny issues such as slavery, consent and caregiving are presented sensitively and provocatively.
But from a competitive bunch, here are the best five films I saw this year.
How To Make A Killing
It’s Christmas in the Jura, France’s picturesque eastern region full of mountains, snow and pine trees. When Michel (Frank Dubosc) accidentally crashes his truck into a car, killing its driver and passenger, his wife Cathy (Laure Calamy) tells him he may have left fingerprints at the crime scene.
They return – and discover two million euros in the car boot, and a loaded gun in the glove box.
From this point on, How To Make A Killing features one improbable but amusingly nerve-wracking twist after another. There’s a local policeman in over his head and drug lords and contract killers who want their money back.
Oh, and a black bear is on the loose.
Writer-director Dubosc pays homage to the Coen brothers and sprinkles in a typically Gallic dose of black humour. What really gives the film zip and pizzazz is the fabulous Calamy. She has risen to the apex of contemporary French stardom and her performance is a delight.
The Divine Sarah Bernhardt
Sarah Bernhardt can lay claim to being the first film celebrity. Born in Paris in 1844, Bernhardt was first a legendary stage actress, performing Shakespeare and Racine across the world (including Melbourne and Sydney in 1891) before gravitating to silent cinema.
Known for her extraordinary talent and intense stage presence (hence “divine”), she refused to play just female roles, famously playing Hamlet. Her eccentricity was equally renowned: she often travelled with an extensive menagerie of exotic pets.
Guillaume Nicloux’s sumptuous biopic unfolds in a radical way. Rather than tracing Bernhardt’s career in the fairly bog-standard biopic way, Nicloux jumps around, focusing on key events from her life – the amputation of a leg, her death, her bisexuality, her hedonistic lifestyle.
Through this bold achronological prism comes another daring choice: we never see Bernhardt act on stage or film. Her stardom emerges through the extraordinary effect she has on people who enter her orbit.
At the centre is a remarkable performance by Sandrine Kiberlain. She captures Bernhardt’s glamour and narcissism but also taps into her vulnerability to reveal her gradual hollowing out as the vagaries of fame take their toll.
It’s a cautionary tale that speaks to our current ambivalence towards stage-managed celebrity and “stardom at all costs”.
My Brother’s Band
Ever since its Cannes debut last May, Emmanuel Courcol’s My Brother’s Band has received rave reviews. It is sure to be an instant classic.
Two brothers are separated at birth and are only reunited decades later when Thibaut (Benjamin Lavernhe) needs a bone marrow transplant. The only suitable donor is long-lost Jimmy (rising star Pierre Lottin).
All that bonds the two is a shared love of music. Thibaut is an esteemed orchestra conductor while Jimmy plays the trombone in a local brass band.
Lavernhe’s and Lottin’s scenes together are wonderfully wry and tender as the two brothers learn to appreciate each other’s lifestyles and ways of seeing the world. We also see how music can bind communities together during times of personal and collective crisis.
Courcol shuttles between the stuffy, cathedral-like spaces of a Paris conservatorium and the cramped parish halls of northern France. Think Brassed Off meets Tár. My Brother’s Band brings the feel-good to the festival.
When Fall is Coming
When Fall is Coming, the latest work by prolific auteur François Ozon, is a broody family drama set in Burgundy.
Behind the autumnal landscapes and off-the-beaten-track villages lies hidden trauma. Michelle (the outstanding Hélène Vincent, now 81) nervously awaits the arrival of her grandson and the daughter from whom she is long estranged (for reasons we don’t understand until much later).
An innocuous first night meal turns to tragedy, and kickstarts a deeply engrossing, often menacing film. Pierre Lottin features again, this time as an ex-con slowly drawn into this unsettling web of secrets and lies.
The “fall” in the title can be read any number of ways. Suffice to say, this slow-burner reminds us of Ozon’s knack in withholding plot points and revealing them gradually. With its blend of spiteful intimacy and startling revelations, When Fall is Coming quietly chills. You’ll not look at mushrooms in the same way again.
Lucky Winners
French filmgoers love to laugh. The top ten grossing French films in history are all comedies.
Lucky Winners is a jet-black comedy about four different winners of France’s national lottery. Each becomes a millionaire overnight – but that’s when their troubles begin. Romain Choay and Maxime Govare’s witty film features a fine ensemble cast and a healthy dose of cruelty and squabbling.
The dream sours. Money does not bring happiness, only guilt, revenge and greed. Feel-good quickly descends into feel-bad. I imagine Hollywood will be remaking this very soon.
The Alliance Française French Film Festival is in cinemas around Australia on various dates until April 27.
Ben McCann 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.
You’ve got a new brown spot on your face, but is it a freckle or a sunspot? Or perhaps you’ve found a spot on your back that looks like a mole but is flatter than your other ones – is it a mole or a dark freckle?
Here’s how to tell the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles – and when you need to get a spot checked to see if it’s skin cancer.
Freckles
Freckles, known as ephelides, are small, flat, light brown spots that appear on people with fair skin, or red or light-coloured hair.
These people are more likely to have the MC1R gene, which leads to freckles forming.
Freckles are caused by sun exposure and are more noticeable in summer. When sunlight hits the skin, cells called melanocytes produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin its colour.
In people prone to freckles, the melanin doesn’t spread evenly. Instead, it clumps together, creating freckles.
Freckles generally appear in childhood and may fade with age, especially if sun exposure reduces. As we age we produce less melanin, or it can break down or disperse, resulting in lighter or fewer freckles.
Using sunscreen and wearing protective clothing can help prevent new freckles from developing, especially on the face and arms.
Sunspots are also called age spots or actinic keratoses (or liver spots, but they have nothing to do with the liver). They are larger than freckles: sometimes the size of a small coin, and appear as flat brown spots.
Sunspots develop over time due to long-term sun exposure, which leads to excessive melanin production. They tend to appear on skin with greater sun exposure, such as the face, hands, shoulders and arms.
Unlike freckles, which tend to get lighter with less sun exposure, sunspots will not fade with time, and may further darken with continued sun exposure.
While sunspots are not dangerous, they do increase your risk of other skin cancers in that area.
It’s also important to monitor them, as slow-growing melanomas may initially look like sunspots. If you see the spot changes in size, shape or colour, see your doctor to rule out skin cancer.
Moles
Moles are often dark, raised or flat skin growths that can appear anywhere on your body.
Although moles can exist from birth, they typically grow during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (including during pregnancy, when hormones are changing), until around the age of around 40. Moles can increase in size, and new ones can also appear.
Most adults have between ten and 40 moles on their body. A person with a high mole count has 50 or more, while someone with a very high mole count has 100 or more.
Moles form when melanocytes grow in clusters instead of spreading evenly throughout the skin.
Moles can either be raised or flat, depending upon their type, depth and age.
Raised moles, referred to as compound nevi, have both flat and raised portions and typically have pigment that is deeper in the skin.
Dermal nevi are skin-coloured or light brown moles that are also raised.
Most moles are harmless. Some may have hair growing from them and some may disappear, whereas other moles may darken or alter with age or hormonal changes.
While freckles and sunspots are completely harmless, moles do require more attention, especially if they change in size, shape, colour or texture.
If a mole shows any of the following warning signs, see your doctor, who will use the ABCDE rule to detect if a lesion is a skin cancer:
asymmetry: if one half of the mole looks different from the other half
border: if your mole is shaped irregularly, jagged or has poorly defined edges
colour: varied shades or sudden changes in colour of the mole
diameter: if it is larger than 6 millimeters (about the size of a pencil eraser)
evolving: if your mole has any changes in its size, shape, colour, or sensation such as itching or bleeding for more than a few weeks.
Our research shows only 21.7% of people can correctly identify melanoma on their own, so professional checks are essential.
How to prevent skin damage
Since freckles, sunspots and some moles are influenced by exposure to the sun, you can protect your skin by:
avoiding the sun when ultraviolet rays are strongest
wearing sunscreen with SPF 50 every day, even when it’s cloudy. Apply it 20 minutes before going outside and reapply every two hours
wearing protective clothing, including a wide-brimmed hat to cover your face, neck and ears, and long-sleeved shirts and pants to protect your arms and legs.
Mike Climstein received funding from Johnson & Johnson
Jeremy Hudson receives funding from Agaibey Enterprises Ltd.
Michael Stapelberg receives funding from Johnson & Johnson.
Nedeljka Rosic received research funding from Johnson & Johnson
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Associate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.
But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.
In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.
We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.
We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.
But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.
Why does breast screening need to change?
Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.
The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.
Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.
Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.
Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.
Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?
International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:
women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms
women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages
women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).
Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).
But we don’t yet know:
how to best identify women at higher risk
which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom
how to staff and run a risk-based screening program
how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.
The road ahead
This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.
This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.
For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).
Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.
For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.
Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.
However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.
How do we best assess women for their risk of breast cancer? At this stage, there’s no one answer. Tint Media/Shutterstock
We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:
a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia
making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see
testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds
clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs
ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.
Breast cancer screening review out soon
Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.
We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.
We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.
Carolyn Nickson led the ROSA Project for Cancer Council Australia. She receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Melbourne Health.
Bruce Mann works as a surgeon at Northwestern BreastScreen in Melbourne. He was a board member of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which has improved screening as a key strategic objective. He is director of research at Breast Cancer Trials. If trials are done in this space, Breast Cancer Trials may be involved. He was a member of the ROSA Project coordination group and jointly chaired the project advisory groups.
Karen Canfell was executive lead for the ROSA Project discussed in this article. She has received grants from the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund, the US National Cancer Institute and CDC, Cancer Research UK, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and government agencies in several countries. She co-leads an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. She also co-leads an implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Indo-Pacific which has received support from the Australian government and the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid and Microbix.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in Music Industries and Cultural Economy, RMIT University
The Australian Music Venue Foundation launched this month to advocate for and potentially administer an arena ticket levy to support grassroots live music venues. Funds would be raised through a small levy, approximately A$1 per ticket, on the price of tickets to large music events, over 5,000 capacity.
The foundation is partly modelled on the United Kingdom’s Music Venue Trust, a charity and advocacy body founded in 2014 that has advocated for a big ticket levy.
While the proposed levy would certainly help to level the playing field between grassroots music venues and the big end of touring, the Music Venue Trust was founded on much more radical principles and ambitions than simple redistribution.
Socialising live music
Although the Music Venue Trust has moved into advocacy and policy work, such as vocal support for the big ticket levy, the trust’s original and continuing mission is to socialise grassroots music venues. This means they work to help venues transition away from for-profit models and towards alternative ownership structures.
The trust’s “Own Our Venues” campaign spawned Music Venue Properties, a charitable landlord funded by the broader music community. The scheme has now purchased five grassroots venues around the UK, leased on the condition they continue to run as live music venues.
The goal is to take the profit motive out of running a venue. Surplus is reinvested into venue spaces, ensuring their long-term sustainability.
As the trust’s founder and CEO Mark Davyd states, “[the community] is the best person to own a venue”.
We don’t want money going to private landlords, we want it in the cultural economy because that’s the way we generate more great artists and give more people the opportunity to be involved in music.
Acknowledging that such radical ambitions require funding, the trust have been long term advocates for a big ticket levy. However, this advocacy has always accompanied their greater goal of socialising live music venues.
The trust have helped to change the broader cultural understanding of grassroots venues in the UK. Between 2014 and 2022, the proportion of music venues in the country run as not-for-profit ventures increased from 3% to 26%.
The Australian context
Melbourne’s Gasometer Hotel and Brisbane’s The Bearded Lady are the latest small, but culturally significant, live music venues to face closure. The number of venues licensed for live music in Australia is falling, with the greatest reductions in the small-to-medium range.
The recent parliamentary inquiry into the live music industry found costs like insurance and rent have risen sharply in the last five years. Meanwhile, income from alcohol sales – a core revenue source for smaller venues – has dropped in connection with changing youth culture, the cost-of-living crisis, and excises hitched to inflation.
Costs to run music venues have increased, while income from avenues like alcohol sales have fallen. Frankie Cordoba/Unsplash
Surveys of young people and other groups affirm that Australians value live music, and most people would like to attend more. The most commonly cited barrier is cost, followed by distance from appropriate venues, especially in regional areas.
An arena ticket levy was a key recommendation of the inquiry, with the committee recommending government agency Music Australia should manage the funds.
capital improvements to venues, such as sound-proofing or disability access
festivals promoting regional, all-ages, First Nations and community participation.
Neither the Labor government nor the opposition have indicated a position on this recommendation, which would require legislation.
The industry proposal
The Australian Music Venue Foundation is asking big music businesses to opt in to an industry-managed ticket levy to fund grassroots live music.
While there has been advocacy for such a voluntary arrangement in the UK, this is yet to come to fruition. The UK government’s deadline for the arrangement of a voluntary scheme by the end of March is approaching, opening up the alternative scenario of a legislated mandatory levy.
Australian advocates believe they may have the relationships to create a different outcome, arguing all industry players have a stake in a healthy music ecosystem.
In the proposed Australian scheme, the recipients and use of funding would be decided by a board of industry professionals. This raises questions around potential conflicts of interest. The foundation has applied for charity status, which requires transparency around operations and finances. However, there are broader questions about priorities.
The foundation argues all levels of the industry have a stake in their being a healthy ecosystem of venues. Austin/Unsplash
If the scheme gets up, the foundation will need to consider whether to restrict its support to Australian-owned, independent venues of a certain size. Alternatively, funds may be available to venues that are part-owned by the same major, for-profit, international companies paying into the scheme.
To replace the proposed government levy, the foundation would also need to find ways of supporting access to live music for regional, all-ages, First Nations, and other disadvantaged communities, as recommended by the inquiry’s report.
The foundation could promote social objectives such as performer diversity, patron safety, and environmental sustainability, but there are no guarantees of this under an industry-led scheme.
These examples demonstrate the issues that can arise when economic redistribution is managed within an industry, rather than by government.
Lofty ambitions
The Music Venue Trust has successfully argued for grassroots music venues as a public good, worthy of longterm community and public investment as well as a structural approach to support.
Through their work, they have provided a new narrative for live music in the UK, supporting innovative ownership and operating models that go beyond the default of a commercially-leased space run as a for-profit small business.
Ambition and innovation has made the trust much more than another industry association advocating for the interests of a particular group of businesses. The Australian Music Venue Foundation should aspire to similar heights if it is to have the same level of influence and impact.
Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.
Ben Green receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
In December 2024, the editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution resigned en masse following disagreements with the journal’s publisher, Elsevier. The board’s grievances included claims of inadequate copyediting, misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), and the high fees charged to make research articles publicly available.
The previous year, more than 40 scientists who made up the entire academic board of a leading journal for brain imaging also walked off the job. The journal in question, Neuroimage, is also published by Elsevier, which the former board members accused of being “too greedy”.
Mass resignations of journal editors are becoming more frequent. They highlight the tension between running a for-profit publishing business and upholding research integrity.
For a long time, academic journals were a niche branch of publishing. They were run by and for research communities. But this started to change from the second world war onwards.
The expansion of research, combined with an influx of commercial publishing players and the rise of the internet in the 1990s, have transformed journal publishing into a highly concentrated and competitive media business.
Along with Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, SAGE, and Taylor & Francis make up what are known as the “big five” in academic publishing. Collectively, these publishers are responsible for roughly 50% of all research output.
A key factor in their profitability is volunteer labour provided by researchers. Traditional models of peer review are a good example of this. Academics provide publishers with content, in the form of journal articles. They also review their peers’ work for free. University libraries then pay for access to the final published journal on behalf of their research community.
Alongside the pressure on academics to publish, the push to “speed up science” through these systems of peer-review only contribute to issues of trust in research.
In 2023, academic publisher Elsevier recorded a profit of roughly $3.6 billion. T.Schneider/Shutterstock
Profit at the expense of research integrity
The increasing frequency of editorial board resignations reflects the tension between researchers trying to uphold scientific and research integrity, and publishers trying to run a for-profit business answerable to shareholders.
Research is most often built on spending taxpayers’ money.
Yet there is often little alignment between the profit imperatives of large, multinational publishers and the expectations of the communities and funding bodies that pay for the costs of research.
For example, for-profit publishing models mean the results of research often end up locked behind paywalls. This has implications for the dissemination of research findings. It also means the public may not be able to access information they need most, such as medical research.
The business of academic publishing also doesn’t always sit comfortably with the values and motives of scholarly inquiry and researchers.
As Arash Abizadeh, a former editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs – a leading political philosophy journal – wrote in The Guardian in July 2024:
Commercial publishers are incentivised to try to publish as many articles and journals as possible, because each additional article brings in more profit. This has led to a proliferation of junk journals that publish fake research, and has increased the pressure on rigorous journals to weaken their quality controls.
What could alternative academic publishing practices that safeguard the integrity of research look like?
The “publish-review-curate” model is one example.
This model has been adopted by community research
initiative MetaROR. It involves authors publishing their work as “preprints” which are immediately accessible to the community.
The work then goes through an open peer review process. Finally, an assessment report is produced based on the reviews.
This model aims to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge. It also aims to encourage a more transparent, collaborative, and constructive review process.
Another important advantage of preprints is that they are not locked behind paywalls. This makes it faster and easier for research communities to share new findings with other researchers quickly.
There are some drawbacks to this model. For example, preprints can cause confusion if they are publicised by the media too early.
The question of who should pay for and maintain online preprint servers, on which global research communities depend, is also a subject of continuing debate.
As the academic ecosystem continues to evolve, we will need publishing models that can adapt to the changes and needs of the research community and beyond.
Lucy Montgomery is part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, and serves on Advisory Boards for several not-for-profit organisations involved in scholarly publishing and open access. She is a member of the UWA Press Board; as well as Chair of the Scientific Committee for the Directory of Open Access Books. She has received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Arcadia Fund, and has previously consulted to both commercial and non-commercial scholarly presses.
Emilia Bell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship for their doctoral research. They are a non-executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Manager, Research and Digital Services at Murdoch University Library. Emilia is also affiliated with several organisations in the wider not-for-profit, higher education, and library sectors.
Karl Huang is affiliated with the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) project, which receives or has received funding from Curtin University, Mellon Foundation, and Arcadia Fund. COKI also works closely with non-profit partners internationally and in Australia. Karl is also affiliated with the Centre for Culture and Technology, as its current Director, at Curtin University.
Stomata – the breathing ‘mouths’ of leaves – under the microscope.Barbol / Shutterstock
Plant behaviour may seem rather boring compared with the frenetic excesses of animals. Yet the lives of our vegetable friends, who tirelessly feed the entire biosphere (including us), are full of exciting action. It just requires a little more effort to appreciate.
One such behaviour is the dynamic opening and closing of millions of tiny mouths (called stomata) located on each leaf, through which plants “breathe”. In this process they let out water extracted from the soil in exchange for precious carbon dioxide from the air, which they need to produce sugar in the sunlight-powered process of photosynthesis.
Opening the stomata at the wrong time can waste valuable water and risk a catastrophic drying-out of the plant’s vascular system. Almost all land plants control their stomata very precisely in response to light and humidity to optimise growth while minimising the damage risk.
How plants evolved this extraordinary balancing act has been the subject of considerable debate among scientists. In a new paper published in PNAS we used lasers to find out how the earliest stomata may have operated.
Tiny valves, global consequences
Much depends on the way stomata behave: plant productivity, sensitivity to drought, and indeed the pace of the global carbon and water cycles.
However, they are difficult to observe in action. Each stomata is like a tiny, pressure-operated valve. They have “guard cells” surrounding an opening or pore which lets water vapour out and carbon dioxide in.
When pressure increases in stomata guard cells, the pore opens – and vice versa. Artemide / Shutterstock
When fluid pressure increases inside the stomata’s guard cells, they swell up to open the pore. When pressure drops, the cells deflate and the pore closes. To understand stomata behaviour, we wanted to be able to measure the pressure in the guard cells – but it’s not easy.
Lasers, bubbles and evolution
Enter Craig Brodersen of Yale University with a newly developed microscope-guided laser. It can create microscopic bubbles inside the individual cells that operate the stomatal pore.
When Brodersen spent a sabbatical at the University of Tasmania (where I am based), we found we could determine the pressure inside stomatal cells by tracking the size of these bubbles and how quickly they collapsed. This involved theoretical calculations guided by bubble expert Philippe Marmottant, of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Grenoble.
This new tool gave us the perfect opportunity to explore how the behaviour of stomata is different among major plant groups. The aim was to test our hypothesis that the evolution of stomatal behaviour follows a predictable trajectory through the history of plant evolution.
We argue it began with a relatively simple ancestral passive control state, currently represented in living ferns and lycophytes, and developed to a more active hormonal control mechanism seen in modern conifers and flowering plants.
Against this hypothesis, some researchers have previously reported complex behaviours in some of the most ancient of stomata-bearing plants, the bryophytes. We wanted to test this finding using our newly developed laser instrument.
400 million years of development
What we found was firstly that our laser pressure probe technique worked extremely well. We made nearly 500 measurements of stomatal pressure dynamics in the space of a few months. This was a marked improvement on the past 45 years, in which fewer than 30 similar measurements had been made.
Secondly, we found that the stomata of our representative bryophytes (hornworts and mosses) lacked even the most basic responses to light found in all other land plants.
This result supported our earlier hypothesis that the first stomata found in ancestors of the modern bryophytes 450 million years ago should have been very simple valves. They would have lacked the complex behaviours seen in modern flowering plants.
Our results suggest that stomatal behaviour has changed substantially through the process of evolution, highlighting critical changes in functionality that are preserved in the different major land plant groups that currently inhabit the Earth.
How plants will survive the future
We can now say with confidence that stomata in mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants all behave in very different ways. This has an important corollary: they will all respond differently to the heaving changes in atmospheric temperature and water availability that they face now and into the near future. Predicting stomatal behaviour in the future will help us to predict these impacts and highlight plant vulnerability.
In terms of agricultural benefit, our new laser method should be fast and sensitive enough to reveal even small differences in the the behaviour of closely related plants. This may help to identify crop variants that use water in a more efficient or productive way, which will assist plant breeders to find varieties that better translate increasingly unpredictable soil water supplies into food.
So next time you look upon a leaf, consider the frantic pace of dynamic calculation and adjustment of millions of little mouths, reacting as your breath falls upon them. Realise that our own fate, tied to the performance of forests and crops in future climates, hangs on the behaviour of the stomata of different species. A good reason for us to understand these unassuming little valves.
Tim Brodribb receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.
But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.
Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.
Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?
Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.
Public service or state propaganda?
The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.
Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.
Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.
On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.
Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.
Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.
The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.
In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.
Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.
A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Getty Images
Other voices get louder
The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.
Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.
An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.
Switched off
Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.
This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.
But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.
Valerie A. Cooper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A human rights group in Aotearoa New Zealand has welcomed support from several Pacific island nations for West Papua, which has been under Indonesian military occupation since the 1960s.
West Papua is a region (with five provinces) in the far east of Indonesia, centred on the island of New Guinea. Half of the eastern side of New Guinea is Papua New Guinea.
West Papua Action Aotearoa claims the Indonesian occupation of West Papua has resulted in serious human rights violations, including a lack of press freedom.
Catherine Delahunty, the group’s spokesperson, says many West Papuans have been displaced as a result of Indonesia’s military activity.
In an interview with William Terite on PMN’s Pacific Mornings, the environmentalist and former Green Party MP said most people did not know much about West Papua “because there’s virtually a media blackout around this country”.
“It’s an hour away from Darwin [Australia], and yet, most people don’t know what has been going on there since the 1960s. It’s a very serious and tragic situation, which is the responsibility of all of us as neighbours,” she said.
“They [West Papuans] regard themselves fully as members of the Pacific community but are treated by Indonesia as an extension of their empire because they have all these natural resources, which Indonesia is rapidly extracting, using violence to maintain the state.”
Delahunty said the situation was “very disturbing”, adding there was a “need for support and change alongside the West Papuan people”.
UN support In a recent joint statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the leaders of Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Sāmoa and Vanuatu called on the global community to support the displaced people of West Papua.
A Free West Papua rally. Image: Nichollas Harrison/PMN News
Delahunty said the Pacific island nations urged the UN Council to advocate for human rights in West Papua.
She also said West Papua Action Aotearoa wanted Indonesia to allow a visit from a UN human rights commissioner, a request that Indonesia has consistently denied.
She said Sāmoa was the latest country to support West Papua, contrasting this with the “lack of action from larger neighbours like New Zealand and Australia”.
Delahunty said that while smaller island nations and some African groups supported West Papua, more powerful states provide little assistance.
“It’s great that these island nations are keeping the issue alive at the United Nations, but we particularly want to shout out to Sāmoa because it’s a new thing,” she told Terite.
“They’ve never, as a government, made public statements. There are many Sāmoan people who support West Papua, and I work with them. But it’s great to see their government step up and make the statement.”
Benny Wenda (right), a West Papuan independence leader, with Eni Faleomavaega, the late American Sāmoan congressman, a supporter of the Free West Papua campaign. Image: Office of Benny Wenda/PMN News
Historically, the only public statements supporting West Papua have come from American Sāmoan congressman Eni Faleomavaega, who strongly advocated for it until he died in 2017.
Praise for Sāmoa Delahunty praised Sāmoa’s support for the joint statement but voiced her disappointment at New Zealand and Australia.
“What’s not encouraging is the failure of Australia and New Zealand to actually support this kind of joint statement and to vigorously stand up for West Papua because they have a lot of power in the region,” she said.
“They’re the big states, and yet it’s the leadership of the smaller nations that we see today.”
In September 2024, Phillip Mehrtens, a pilot from New Zealand, was released by West Papua rebels after being held captive for 19 months.
Mehrtens, 39, was kidnapped by West Papua National Liberation Army fighters in February 2023 and was released after lengthy negotiations and “critical’ diplomatic efforts by authorities in Wellington and Jakarta.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Vaovasamanaia Winston Peters welcomed his release.
New Zealand pilot Phillip Mehrtens was kidnapped by militants in West Papua on 7 March 2023. He was released 19 months later. Image: TPNPB/PMN News
Why is there conflict in West Papua? Once a Dutch colony, the region is divided into five provinces, the two largest being Papua and West Papua. It is separate from PNG, which gained independence from Australia in 1975.
Papuan rebels seeking independence from Indonesia have issued threats and attacked aircraft they believe are carrying personnel and delivering supplies for Jakarta.
The resource-rich region has sought independence since 1969, when it came under Indonesia’s control following a disputed UN-supervised vote.
Conflicts between indigenous Papuans and Indonesian authorities have been common with pro-independence fighters increasing their attacks since 2018.
The Free Papua Movement has conducted a low-intensity guerrilla war against Indonesia, targeting military and police personnel, along with ordinary Indonesian civilians.
Human rights groups estimate that Indonesian security forces have killed more than 300,000 West Papuans since the conflict started.
But the Indonesian government denies any wrongdoing, claiming that West Papua is part of Indonesia and was integrated after the controversial “Act of Free Choice” in 1969.
Manipulated process The Act of Free Choice has been widely criticised as a manipulated process, with international observers and journalists raising concerns about the fairness and legitimacy of the plebiscite.
Despite the criticism, the United States and its allies in the region, New Zealand and Australia, have supported Indonesia’s efforts to gain acceptance in the UN for the pro-integration vote.
Human rights groups, such as Delahunty’s West Papua Action Aotearoa, have raised “serious concerns” about the deteriorating human rights situation in Papua and West Papua.
They cite alarming abuses against indigenous Papuans, including child killings, disappearances, torture, and mass displacement.
Delahunty believes the hope for change lies with the nations of Te Moana Nui a Kiwa. She said it also came from the younger people in Indonesia today.
“This is a colonisation issue, and it’s a bit like Aotearoa, in the sense that when the people who have been part of the colonising start addressing the issue, you get change. But it’s far too slow. So we are so disappointed.”
Queensland and the federal government have reached an agreement on school funding. This means all Australian states and territories are now signed up to new arrangements, which officially began at the start of 2025.
The agreement follows more than a year of negotiations between the federal and state governments.
The agreements mean government schools will receive 25% of funding from the federal government, up from 20%. Cash-strapped state and territory governments now only have to find 75% (down from 80%).
In some good news for schools, it also means there is now a firm plan to “fully fund” public schools by 2034. This means they will get 100% of the funding recommended by the schooling resource standard (or school funding mechanism) – albeit more than a decade after it was first recommended by the Gonski review in 2011.
Much of the debate about the agreements has understandably focused on the funding split between federal and state governments.
But the agreements also tie vital funding for schools to specific targets and reforms for the next ten years. There is plenty of fine print.
Here are four major changes we can expect to see in schools and classrooms around Australia.
The new agreement will see all students receive a “unique student identifier” as part of a national system.
This is a number all students will have from the time they start school. It would follow them through school to tertiary education or any other further study or training.
A long time in the planning, it was included in the last school funding agreement, which expired at the end of 2024, despite little progress.
At the moment, education systems can easily lose track of students. For example, pre-COVID an estimated 50,000 children and young people were not officially tracked by education authorities.
The identifier number means governments will be able to track students across school systems. For example, if they move from the public system to the private system. Or if they move states or begin homeschooling.
The identifier will also provide a greater understanding of the pathways taken by young people after school and potentially make it easier to link senior high schooling with TAFE and other vocational studies.
Introducing a bill to set up architecture for the indentifier last year, federal Education Minister Jason Clare said it would have “robust privacy measures”, including protection under the Privacy Act.
Along with rolling out a well-publicised national phonics check for Year 1 (which some states are already doing), the new agreements include a numeracy check for young students.
The new checks will be used to identify students and schools in need of extra support.
So far, we have few details on the design or time frames. The checks may also need significant research and development to work effectively. But existing programs (such as in South Australia) show screening checks have the potential to provide better monitoring and resourcing for student needs.
3. A review of how school funding is calculated
The new agreement also flags two more significant reviews.
One will be on the way school funding is calculated – the first review since the current system was devised in 2011.
The schooling resource standard is an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students’ educational needs.
In 2025, the base rates are A$13,977 for primary students and $17,565 for high school students. On top of these, there are six loadings to provide extra funding for students and schools with additional needs. This includes students with disability, Indigenous students and students in remote areas.
But as a 2023 Productivity Commission review noted, some individual students qualify under multiple categories, and “the effects can be compounding”. This means this level of disadvantage needs more understanding and policy adjustment.
The review will examine the methodology behind the base rate and loadings. As part of this, it will hopefully look at transparency around school funding arrangements. The Australian National Audit Office identified this as an issue as far back as 2017.
4. A review of how schools are measured
There will also be a review of the national Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia. This details key performance measures for schooling, such as attendance, NAPLAN results and school completion.
This framework usually has just minor adjustments about every couple of years. But a more significant overhaul is now in the works, with states agreeing a review will look at “possible new and updated measures”.
These could include indicators for students’ engagement and learning growth, as well as outcomes for students with disability and the teaching workforce.
Elsewhere in the new agreement, states and territories also agreed to “better understand” how socioeconomic diversity and school attendance are impacting student learning. This can be seen as high-level acknowledgement the current reporting mechanisms and data on students need to improve.
Now we need to see progress
The new schools agreement contains some promising new measures to improve outcomes for students and teachers. But we now need to see them implemented.
As the Productivity Commission and National Audit Office have previously noted, just because something is included in a school funding agreement, does not necessarily mean it will happen on time or as planned.
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.
The federal budget will be handed down by Treasurer Jim Chalmers at 7:30PM AEDT on Tuesday March 25.
While the official budget papers are under lock and key until then, the government has been making spending announcements for weeks. Here’s what we know.
Total promised spending is $29.3 billion, excluding off-budget spending on education, and over a range of forward years. Data is sourced from federal government announcements.
In just two months back in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump has tested the limits of the US Constitution, from overhauling immigration to drastically reducing the federal workforce and dismantling government agencies.
With Republicans now in control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, Congress has so far shown little sign it will stand in Trump’s way.
The judiciary is the other branch of government that can check the power of the president. However, the Trump administration has appeared increasingly willing to simply ignore decisions handed down by judges.
There has also been a notable lack of unified opposition from the Democratic Party.
Congressional Democrats are demoralised and deeply divided over how to respond to Trump. They face criticism, too, over their apparent lack of strategy.
This has led some to ask why the United States lacks a formal political opposition leader.
How opposition leaders operate in other countries
In the American political system, the loser of the presidential election doesn’t retain a position as leader of the party in opposition. Instead, they tend to disappear from view.
Kamala Harris is considering a run for governor of California — and could well attempt another run for president in 2028 or beyond. But she hasn’t remained a vocal counterpoint to Trump since he took office.
By contrast, in countries with Westminster-style parliamentary systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and India, the main party not in power selects an opposition leader from among their ranks. In most countries, this position is defined by convention, not law.
The opposition leader in many countries serves as the main face — and voice — of the party not in power. They work to keep the government accountable and are seen as the leader of an alternative government-in-waiting.
What it takes to lead the opposition in the US
During Trump’s first term, the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was widely recognised as the de facto Democratic opposition leader.
A skilled negotiator, Pelosi was largely able to unite the Democrats behind her to lead the opposition to Trump’s legislative agenda — famously ripping up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union address on the House podium in 2020.
As Senate majority and minority leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell successfully blocked swathes of legislation during Barack Obama’s presidency. He even thwarted a US Supreme Court nomination.
In the 1980s, then-Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill led the Democratic opposition to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s domestic agenda, without resorting to obstructionism.
However, for an opposition figure to have this level of influence, they usually need decades of experience, political skill, and a party in control of the House or Senate.
The Democrats no longer have a majority in either chamber and are no longer led by Pelosi. Hakeem Jeffries has been the House minority leader since 2023, but without the speaker’s gavel or control of any committees, he has limited influence.
Party discipline is typically far more unwieldy in the United States compared to other countries. In Australia, for instance, crossing the floor to vote against your own party is very rare.
Unruly party caucuses make it significantly more difficult for a single party figurehead to emerge unless they command near-universal party loyalty and respect among their members in both chambers.
Will Democratic cracks shatter the party?
The Democratic caucus, already strained by Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, is now even more fractured.
The Democrats continue to grapple with their resounding defeat in November, which saw the party lose ground with almost every demographic across the country. Polling shows public support for the Democrats has slumped to unprecedented lows, with just over a quarter of voters holding a positive view of the party.
Most dramatically, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer defied fellow Democrats (including Jeffries) by voting in favour of a resolution in recent weeks to avoid a government shutdown. His decision sparked an uproar from his party colleagues.
Visual images of the party’s disarray were also on clear display during Trump’s joint address to Congress earlier this month. While some representatives protested loudly, others followed leadership instruction to remain silent.
Democrats were in near lock-step on almost all issues during Trump’s first term, as well as Biden’s presidency. Now, some are calling on Schumer to step aside as minority leader — and for the Democrats to coalesce behind a younger, more outspoken leader such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Where next for the party?
In the fractious debates now consuming the party, some see parallels with the emergence of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party during Barack Obama’s first term in office.
The current Democratic division could result in the emergence of a stronger dissident faction within the party. And this could push a harder line in opposition to Trump, no longer toeing the line from party leadership.
Yet, while the political outlook for Democrats may appear bleak, electoral turnarounds can happen quickly in the United States.
Few expected a demoralised Democratic party to turn John Kerry’s heavy defeat to George W Bush in 2004 into a generational victory just four years later. Similarly, after Obama decisively won reelection against Mitt Romney in 2012, few Republicans could have predicted they’d soon be back in power with Trump.
But, as was the case 20 years ago, the soul-searching process will be painful for the Democrats. Whether it’s Ocasio-Cortez or another figure, the 2026 midterm elections are likely to be the best opportunity for a new central leader to emerge on the national stage.
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.
Confronting images of dead seadragons, fish and octopuses washed up on South Australian beaches – and disturbing reports of “more than 100” surfers and beachgoers suffering flu-like symptoms after swimming or merely breathing in sea spray – attracted international concern last week.
Speculation about the likely cause ranged from pollution and algae to unusual bacterial infections or viruses. Today we can reveal the culprit was a tiny – but harmful – type of planktonic algae called Karenia mikimotoi.
The SA government sent us water samples from Waitpinga Beach, Petrel Cove Beach, Encounter Bay Boat Ramp and Parsons Headland on Tuesday. We studied the water under the microscope and extracted DNA for genetic analysis.
Our results revealed high numbers of the tiny harmful algal species – each just 20 microns in diameter (where one micron is one thousandth of a millimetre). While relatively common in Australian coastal waters, blooms of K. mikimotoi occur only sporadically. But similar harmful algal blooms and fish kills due to K. mikimotoi have happened in the past, such as the 2014 bloom in Coffin Bay, SA. And this latest one won’t be the last.
Sick surfers and dead marine life from strange sea foam (ABC News)
Harmful algal blooms
Single-celled, microbial algae occur naturally in seawater all over the world.
They are also called phytoplankton, because they float in the water column and photosynthesise like plants. “Phyto” comes from the Greek word for plant and “plankton” comes from the Greek word for wanderer, which relates to their floating movement with ocean currents and tides.
Like plants on land, the microalgae or phytoplankton in the ocean capture sunlight and produce up to half the oxygen in our atmosphere. There are more than 100,000 different species of microalgae. Every litre of seawater will normally contain a mixed group of these different microalgae species.
But under certain conditions, just a single species of microalgae can accumulate in one area and dominate over the others. If we are unlucky, the dominant species may be one that produces a toxin or has a harmful effect.
This so-called “harmful algal bloom” can cause problems for people and for marine life such as fish, invertebrates such as crabs, and even marine mammals such as whales and seals.
Most of these toxic chemical compounds produced by harmful algae are quite well known, including neurotoxins that affect the brain. But others are more complicated, and the mechanisms of toxicity are poorly understood. This can make it more difficult to understand the factors leading to the deaths of fish and other marine life. Unfortunately, the toxins from K. mikimotoi fall into this latter category.
Introducing Karenia mikimotoi
Karenia mikimotoi under the microscope. Shauna Murray
The species responsible for recent events in SA beaches, K. mikimotoi, causes harmful algal blooms in Asia, Europe, South Africa and South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand. These blooms all caused fish deaths, and some also caused breathing difficulties among local beachgoers.
The most drastic of these K. mikimotoi blooms have occurred in China over the past two decades. In 2012, more than 300 square kilometres of abalone farms were affected, causing about A$525 million in lost production.
Explaining the toxic effects
Microalgae can damage the gills of fish and shellfish, preventing them from breathing. This is the main cause of death. But some studies have also found damage to the gastrointestinal tracts and livers of fish.
Tests using fish gill cells clearly show the dramatic toxic effect of K. mikimotoi. When the fish gill cells were exposed to intact K. mikimotoi cells, after 3.5 hours more than 80% of the fish cells had died.
Fortunately, the toxin does not persist in the environment after the K. mikimotoi cells are dead. So once the bloom is over, the marine environment can recover relatively quickly.
Its toxicity is partly due to the algae’s production of “reactive oxygen species”, reactive forms of oxygen molecules which can cause the deaths of cells in high doses. K. mikimotoi cells may also produce lipid (fat) molecules that cause some toxic effects.
Finally, a very dense bloom of microalgae can sometimes reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water column, which means there is less oxygen for other marine life.
The human health effects are not very well known but probably relate to the reactive oxygen species being an irritant.
K. mikimitoi cells can also produce “mucilage”, a type of thick, gluey substance made of complex sugars, which can accumulate bacteria inside it. This can cause “sea foam”, which was evident on beaches last week.
South Australia’s marine emblem, the leafy seadragon, washed up dead on the beach. Anthony Rowland
Unanswered questions remain
A question for many people is whether increasing water temperatures make blooms of K. mikimotoi more likely.
Another concern is whether nutrient runoff from farms, cities and aquaculture could cause more harmful algal blooms.
Unfortunately, for Australia at least, the answer to these questions is we don’t know yet. While we know some harmful algal blooms do increase when nutrient runoff is higher, others actually prefer fewer nutrients or colder temperatures.
If you notice discoloured water, fish deaths or excessive sea foam along the coast or in an estuary, avoid fishing or swimming in the area and notify local primary industry or environmental authorities in your state.
Shauna Murray receives funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the New South Wales Recreational Fisheries Trust, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, and the Storm and Flood Industry Recovery Program. She is President of the Austalasian Society of Phycology and Aquatic Botany and past chair of the NSW Shellfish Committee.
Greta Gaiani 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 summer, an intense marine heatwave struck off northwestern Australia, driving sea surface temperatures up to 4°C above the summer average. The large mass of warm water has slowly moved south from the Kimberley region and through the Pilbara, leaving a wave of underwater destruction behind. Now Ningaloo Reef is bleaching in earnest.
The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching too in the waters from Cape York down to Townsville.
This appears to be the first time these two World Heritage-listed reefs have bleached in unison. Bleaching may also hit the World Heritage reef at Shark Bay in Western Australia.
How bad is it? I have just returned from Ningaloo Reef, where I saw widespread bleaching and the first signs of coral mortality. Up to 90% of the coral found in shallow areas of the northern lagoon had bleached. Bleaching doesn’t automatically mean death, but it severely weakens the coral and jeopardises survival.
At Ningaloo and further south, the heatwave is still unfolding. In coming months, we can expect to see some coral mortality, while other corals will survive the bleaching in poor health only to succumb to disease or other threats such as Drupella (coral-eating snails). Other corals may survive but struggle to reproduce, but some particularly hardy corals with the right combination of genes for surviving this event are expected to live on.
Why is this happening? No surprises here: our greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat in the atmosphere. Over 90% of the heat pours into the oceans, pushing surface and deep water temperatures higher for longer periods of time.
How bad has the heat been?
Coral can tolerate brief periods of higher temperatures. But in response to prolonged heat stress, coral polyps expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae algae. They appear to do this to avoid further tissue damage from toxic reactive oxygen molecules which build up as the coral begins to stress. But these microalgae supply sugary food to the coral polyps in exchange for a home. Without these nutrients, the coral can starve.
Heat stress is tracked using a measure called “degree heating weeks” (DHW) – essentially, how much above-average heat has built up in an area over the previous three months. Bleaching can begin at four DWH, while eight DHW can kill some corals.
At Ningaloo, the heat has been off the charts – levels of up to 16 DHW have been recorded, the highest on record for this location.
On the Great Barrier Reef, bleaching is underway in the northernmost section. This is the sixth bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef this decade. Early data suggests there is severe heat in places, ranging from six to 13 DHW in intensity and alerts remain for more heat and bleaching to come.
Bleaching is usually worst for corals growing in shallow water, such as the calm lagoons created by fringing or barrier reefs. Lagoons often have clear waters with high light penetration and limited flushing of water.
Ningaloo in hot water
Over ten days, we recorded the health and type of every coral we saw at 21 sites along Ningaloo Reef, from Coral Bay to the northern tip of North West Cape and into Exmouth Gulf.
The worst affected area that we observed was a 30 km stretch at the northern end of the North West Cape, the peninsula along which Ningaloo Reef runs. Here, we saw mass bleaching – up to 90% of corals partly or fully bleaching and some corals were already dying.
Fast-growing corals from the Acroporid and Pocilloporid families were hard hit, as often seen in other bleaching events. But we also saw slower-growing and normally hardy corals bleaching, such Lobophyllia, Favites and Goniastrea.
Even the massive Porites corals in the lagoons were suffering. These giant boulder-like corals are the old growth and sentinels of the reef. Many of these ordinarily resilient corals are hundreds of years old and have survived past smaller bleaching events. But this time, they too are severely suffering.
Not even ocean-facing corals exposed to more water flow were safe. We found 30 to 50% of the corals on the reef slope were bleached to some degree. Coral diseases such as white band disease were already affecting many flat plate corals. These diseases often follow marine heatwaves, as they take advantage of coral’s weakened immune systems and the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between coral polyps and their algae.
The timing is especially bad for Ningaloo’s corals, which usually spawn around five days after the March full moon, which fell on March 19 this year. By contrast, corals on the Great Barrier Reef tend to spawn between October and December.
For the reef to recover quickly, it needs yearly influxes of new coral recruits. But if corals are struggling to survive, there is a risk they will not be fit enough to reproduce. Corals take three to six years to become reproductively viable and if bleaching impedes reproduction, it could greatly reduce the number of larvae available to replenish the reef. In addition to that, if immature corals bleach and die, there’s a risk several generations of corals could be lost before reaching maturity.
Fortunately we did observe healthy and reproductive corals along the outer rim of the lagoon at Coral Bay, and locals have recently reported seeing spawning near Coral Bay. This suggests some coral were indeed healthy enough to spawn.
What will happen next?
As the southern hemisphere heads towards winter, the oceans will begin to cool off. That doesn’t mean the threat is over – oceans are only getting hotter.
If we continue on our current path, simultaneous east and west coast bleaching events could become the new normal – and that would be devastating for our reefs, marine biodiversity, the blue economy and the wellbeing of Australians.
Zoe Richards receives funding from the Minderoo Foundation. This work was undertaken by the Coral Conservation and Research Group at Curtin University in partnership with the Minderoo Exmouth Research Laboratory.
Last week, the Novak Djokovic-led Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) announced it was suing the sport’s governing bodies – the men’s (ATP) and women’s (WTA) tours, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA).
The lawsuit:
seeks to change the prize money formula designed by the men’s and women’s tours (the PTPA says too little of the sport’s revenue goes to players)
aims to improve the “unsustainable” 11-month calendar and match schedules that often keep players on court well past midnight
alleges a “heavy-handed approach” by the ITIA
criticises the sport’s rankings system
wants to boost the number of combined men’s-women’s events.
The union, cofounded by Djokovic five years ago, also alleges “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.
The lawsuit is just one example of a battle for control of international sport – the outcome of which will shape sport for years to come.
The power of sport governing bodies
Sport’s international governing bodies – such the International Olympic Committee, soccer’s governing body the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and, in the case of tennis, the ATP, WTA and ITF – are masters of their domains.
These bodies exercise great power and autonomy over the competitions they administer. They determine who competes in their competitions, when and where, as well as rules and policies.
These rules cover tournament schedules, player eligibility and anti-doping policies. Players, teams and even countries that breach these rules are subject to penalties including expulsion from competitions.
Governments have largely been willing partners in this. They have respected the autonomy of these governing bodies and assisted them where necessary by, for example, hosting their mega-events such as the Olympics, World Cups and Grand Slam tournaments.
However, this is changing.
A changing landscape
As shown by the PTPA lawsuit, players are seeking a greater share of sports’ economic pie, better working conditions, more freedom in selecting where and when they play, and a greater say in how their sports are run.
Private investors also are seeking to share in the money being made from sport by establishing rival competitions.
And all of this is occurring in the shadow of a broader geopolitical restructuring in which the West’s traditional hegemony over sport is being challenged by the wealth of the Gulf states, the assertiveness of authoritarian regimes, and the emerging economies of the Global South.
The result is a contest for control between actors and forces, both powerful and passionate.
The outcome of this contest is important because sport is a generator of significant economic activity (a recent study estimated the global sport industry to be the ninth largest industry on earth) and an important vehicle for driving social change – both of which also make it politically important.
What does the future hold?
When confronted with forces for change, sport governing bodies generally go through a three-stage process of denial (rejecting the need for change), resistance (fighting the change), and adaptation (conceding some autonomy while retaining ultimate control).
The tennis dispute is travelling this well-worn path. Tennis’s governing bodies have denied the PTPA a seat at the table, so the PTPA is now taking the matter to court (early indications are tennis’s governing bodies will fight it vigorously).
Predicting the outcome of litigation is fraught. However, sport governing bodies do not have a strong record defending the use of their power before the courts.
Courts are more independent and less deferential towards sport governing bodies than the political arms of government.
Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union offer evidence of this. It applied EU competition law to constrain the power of sport governing bodies to:
Another example comes from the United States, where the Supreme Court struck down as an antitrust (competition) law violation, rules that limited the benefits student-athletes can receive for playing.
This litigation led the governing body of collegiate sport, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to propose a US$2.8 billion (A$4.45 billion) settlement that will allow colleges to pay their student-athletes.
As for tennis, settlement of the PTPA litigation is possible, notwithstanding the current rhetoric.
Indeed, some form of adaptation of sports’ governing bodies to accommodate the various forces and interests at play is the most likely outcome.
Eric Windholz 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.
Southern Cross, a French-hosted regional military exercise, is moving to Wallis and Futuna Islands this year.
The exercise, which includes participating regional armed and law enforcement forces from Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Tonga every two years, is scheduled to take place April 22-May 3.
Since its inception in 2002, the war games have traditionally been hosted in New Caledonia.
However, New Caledonia was the scene last year of serious riots, causing 14 deaths, hundreds injured, and an estimated cost of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.2 billion)
Southern Cross focuses on the notion of “interoperability” between regional forces, with a joint multinational command following a predefined but realistic scenario, usually in a fictitious island state affected by a natural disaster and/or political unrest.
This is the first time the regional French exercise will be hosted on Wallis Island, in the French Pacific territory of Wallis and Futuna, near Fiji and Samoa.
Earlier this month (March 3-5), the Nouméa-based French Armed Forces in New Caledonia (FANC) hosted a “Final Coordination Conference” (FCC) with its regional counterparts after a series of on-site reconnaissance visits to Wallis and Futuna Islands ahead of the Southern Cross 2025 manoeuvres.
Humanitarian, disaster relief FANC also confirmed this year, again in Wallis-and-Futuna, the exercise scenario would mainly focus on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) and that it would involve, apart from the French forces, the deployment of some 19 other participating countries, with an estimated 2000 personnel, including 600 regional.
A French Carrier Strike Group exercise Clémenceau25 deployment map of operations. Image: ALPACI-Forces armées en Asie-Pacifique et en Polynésie française
Last week, still in preparation mode, a group of FANC officers travelled again to Wallis for three days to finalise preparations ahead of the exercise.
In an interview with public broadcaster Wallis and Futuna la 1ère, FANC inter-army chief-of-staff Colonel Frédéric Puchois said the group of officers met local chiefly and royal authorities, as well as the Speaker of the local territorial assembly.
In 2023, the previous Southern Cross exercise held in New Caledonia involved the participation of about 18 regional countries.
“It’s all about activating and practising quick and efficient scenarios to respond mainly to a large-scale natural disaster,” Colonel Puchois said.
“Southern Cross until now took place in New Caledonia, but it was decided for 2025 to choose Wallis and Futuna to work specifically on long-distance projection.
“So, the Americans will position some of their forces in Pago-Pago in American Samoa to test their capacity to project forces from a rear base located 2000 kms away [from Wallis].
“And for the French part, the rear base will be New Caledonia,” he added.
Port Vila earthquake He said one of the latest real-life illustrations of this kind of deployment was the recent relief operation from Nouméa following Port Vila’s devastating earthquake in mid-December 2024.
“We brought essential relief supplies, in coordination with NGOs like the Red Cross. And during Southern Cross 2025, we will again work with them and other NGOs”.
However, Colonel Puchois said not all personnel would be deployed at the same time.
“We will project small groups at a time. There will be several phases,” he said.
“First to secure the airport to ensure it is fit for landing of large aircraft. This could involve parachute personnel and supplies.
“Then assistance to the population, involving other components such as civil security, fire brigades, gendarmes. It would conclude with evacuating people in need of further assistance.
“So we won’t project all of the 2000 participants at the same time, but groups of 250 to 300 personnel”.
Cooperation with Vanuatu Mobile Force FANC Commander General Yann Latil was in Vanuatu two weeks ago, where he held meetings with Vanuatu Mobile Forces (VMF) Commander Colonel Ben Nicholson and Vanuatu Internal Affairs minister Andrew Napuat to discuss cooperation, as well as handling and maintenance of the French-supplied FAMAS rifles.
For two weeks, two FANC instructors were in Port Vila to train a group of about 15 VMF on handling and maintenance of the FAMAS used by the island state’s paramilitary force.
The VMF were also handed over more ammunition for the standard issue FAMAS (the French equivalent of the US-issued M-16).
French Armed Forces Commander in New Caledonia (FANC) General Yann Latil visits Vanuatu Mobile Forces (VMF) training in French FAMAS rifles maintenance. Image: FANC Forces Armées en Nouvelle-Calédonie
During his visit, General Latil also held talks with Vanuatu Internal Affairs Minister Andrew Napuat, who is in charge of the VMF and police.
FANC and Vanuatu security forces are “working on a regular basis”, Vanuatu-based French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer said.
The three-star general (equivalent of a lieutenant-general) flew back to Nouméa about 500 km away on March 8.
French vessel on fishing policing mission At the same time, still in Vanuatu, Nouméa-based overseas support and assistance vessel (BSAOM) the D’Entrecasteaux and its crew were on a courtesy call in Luganville (Espiritu Santo island, North Vanuatu) for three days.
After hosting local officials and school students for visits, the patrol boat embarked on a surveillance policing mission in high seas off the archipelago.
One ni-Vanuatu officer also joined the French crew inspecting foreign fishing vessels and checking if they comply with current regulations under the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).
On a regular basis, similar monitoring operations are also carried out by navies from other regional countries such as Australia and New Zealand in order to assist neighbouring Pacific States in protecting their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) from what is usually termed Illegal Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing from foreign vessels.
Last month, the D’Entrecasteaux was engaged in a series of naval exercises off Papua New Guinea.
Further north in the Pacific, French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its strike group wrapped up an unprecedented two-month deployment in a series of multinational exercises with Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam), where “one third of the world’s maritime trade transits every day”.
This included its own Exercises Clémenceau25 and La Pérouse (with eight neighbouring forces), but also interoperability-focused manoeuvres with the US and Japan (Pacific Steller).
“The deployment of this military capacity underlines France’s attachment to maritime and aerial freedom of action and movement on all seas and oceans of the world”, the Tahiti-based Pacific Maritime Command (ALPACI) said this week in a release.
US Navy in Western Pacific activity Also in western Pacific waters, the US Navy’s activity has been intense over the past few weeks, and continues.
The Virginia-class fast-attack submarine USS Vermont (SSN 792) returned on 18 March to Joint Base Pearl Harbour-Hickam, following a seven-month deployment, the submarine’s first deployment to the Western Pacific, the US Third Fleet command stated.
On Friday, the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Strike Group (NIMCSG) left Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington, for a regularly scheduled deployment to the Western Pacific.
The US Third Fleet command said the strike group’s deployment will focus on “demonstrating the US Navy’s unwavering commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific in which all nations are secure in their sovereignty and free from coercion”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Silicosis is an incurable but entirely preventable lung disease. It has only one cause: breathing in too much silica dust. This is a risk in several industries, including tunnelling, stone masonry and construction.
Just last week, ABC reported that 13 workers from tunnelling projects in Sydney have been diagnosed with silicosis. It’s yet another reminder that current diagnostic methods are limited. They often detect the disease only after the lungs already have significant damage.
Our new study, published in the Journal of Breath Research, provides the latest results on a breath test for detecting silicosis powered by artificial intelligence (AI). It’s non-invasive and measures dozens of molecules to identify silicosis in just minutes.
The test we’ve developed achieved over 90% accuracy in differentiating silicosis patients from healthy individuals. This is better than traditional lung function tests.
While our test is yet to be trialled in real-world clinics, our results so far suggest breath testing could become a crucial tool in workplace health screening. Early detection would prevent suffering and disease progression, and reduce healthcare costs.
Silicosis is a growing problem – but hard to detect
Currently, more workers in New South Wales, elsewhere in Australia and internationally are being diagnosed with silicosis at younger ages. The Australian government has responded by banning engineered stone, but that doesn’t address ongoing risks in other industries.
Patients with silicosis often describe a feeling like they are slowly being strangled, with every breath becoming more difficult over time. In advanced stages, silicosis can be fatal unless patients can access a lung transplant.
The only way to stop the progression of silicosis is removing affected workers from further silica exposure. This is why diagnosing patients in the early stages – before irreversible lung damage occurs – is critical.
However, this isn’t easy to achieve. Lung function testing and chest X-rays only identify the problem once irreversible lung damage has occurred. In some cases, patients also need CT scans and invasive biopsy to confirm diagnosis. But CT scans, although much higher resolution, also rely on visible signs of silicosis.
And these methods are costly and take time, making it harder to easily screen the thousands of workers who could be at risk.
This is where breath testing comes in.
Research team members Merryn Baker (left) and Dr Laura Capasso supervise a study participant providing a breath test sample for analysis. Richard Freeman/UNSW
How breath tests can detect disease
Human breath contains hundreds of volatile organic compounds – small gas molecules that come from metabolic processes in the body, as well as the environment.
The composition of these molecules changes in response to physiological conditions like disease. However, volatile organic compounds are often present in extremely low concentrations – we need highly sensitive technology to detect them reliably.
Our team has developed tools that can detect volatile organic compounds at concentrations as low as parts per trillion. This is equivalent to detecting a single drop of liquid diluted in multiple Olympic-sized swimming pools.
This level of sensitivity allows us to identify very small biochemical changes in breath. AI is key to this approach. Our machine learning model analyses breath samples to tell apart healthy individuals and those with silicosis.
This builds on our previous work using AI to analyse blood plasma for early Parkinson’s disease detection with high accuracy and interpretability, which allows us to determine the chemical features that contribute the most to model accuracy. Interpretability refers to the ability to understand and explain how the AI model arrives at its predictions, providing insights into which data inputs are most important.
Now, we have applied similar methods to breath analysis. Thanks to the sensitivity of our test, we could potentially detect silicosis at very early stages.
Breath samples could be collected at scale at workplaces to monitor the health of at-risk workers. Richard Freeman/UNSW
How well does it work?
In our new study, the breath test was trialled on 31 silicosis patients and 60 healthy controls. The AI-powered model successfully distinguished silicosis cases with over 90% accuracy.
The test takes less than five minutes per sample, making it feasible for large-scale health screening. Additionally, the test doesn’t require subjects to fast or undergo any special preparation beforehand.
An important question in breath analysis is whether external factors, such as diet or smoking, influence test results. Our study included smokers and non-smokers in both silicosis and healthy control groups, and the test maintained high accuracy.
Our results show great promise, but there are challenges to overcome. The test relies on highly sensitive instrumentation that, while compact (less than a cubic metre), still requires technical expertise to operate.
The AI-powered breath test involves specialised tools to perform the analysis. Richard Freeman/UNSW
Currently, breath samples are collected in clinics and transported to a lab for analysis. We hope future iterations could allow for testing in workplace settings, creating routine screening programs. Further validation in larger, diverse worker populations is also necessary before full implementation.
The next phase of research will involve refining the AI model and expanding real-world testing to thousands of silica-exposed workers who might be at risk.
While routine medical evaluations will still be necessary for at-risk workers, the addition of breath analysis could enable more continuous monitoring than what is currently practical. It could help detect silicosis earlier, before the symptoms become irreversible, reducing long-term health risks.
Acknowledgements: Aruvi Thiruvarudchelvan and Jeff Gordon also contributed to this research.
William Alexander Donald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, iCare Dust Diseases Board, Coal Services NSW Health & Safety Trust, US National Institutes of Health and several industry research contracts. He is an advisor to Preview Health and Mass Affinity. He is president of the Australian & New Zealand Society for Mass Spectrometry.
Deborah Yates is an occupational respiratory physician and a director of Thomas-Yates Pty Ltd, a medical services company, and an expert advisor to the Asbestos & Dust Diseases Research Institute, Concord, NSW. She is an independent director of the board of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, a global advisor to the Royal College of Physicians of London, independent member of the NSW Mine Safety Advisory Council and Councillor to the Australian Society of Salaried Medical Officers (ASMOF) of NSW, the doctors’ union. She acts also as an advisor to Tuberous Sclerosis Australia and LAM Australasia. She receives no funding for any of these roles. She has recently received funding for investigator-initiated grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and iCare NSW as well as the Coal Services Trust, and has previously participated in several industry initiated research studies into asthma and chronic cough. She is a member of the iCare Medical Advisory Panel. She has in the past acted in an advisory capacity and given paid lectures for Glaxo Smith Klein, Astra Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. She has no shares in mining companies or pharmaceutical companies and is not a member of any political parties.
Merryn Baker’s PhD research was funded by UNSW through the Scientia Scheme.
Earlier this month, Kmart pulled a “hyaluronic acid cleansing balm” from its shelves, after a teen who used the skincare product was hospitalised, reporting eye pain and blurred vision. It’s unclear what ingredient caused this reaction.
In a statement, Kmart said it was removing the product while conducting an investigation. The retailer also said:
We want to assure our customers that our cosmetics are designed to ensure that they comply with both Australian and European requirements on ingredients.
Hyaluronic acid – despite the name – is a gentle ingredient commonly used in skincare products.
But what does hyaluronic acid do to your skin as a skincare ingredient? And is it safe for tweens and teens?
What is hyaluronic acid?
Hyaluronic acid is a glycosaminoglycan – a sugar-based molecule found naturally in the skin, eyes, joint fluid and connective tissue.
It plays a key role in hydrating the skin and tissues, lubricating our joints and supporting tissue repair.
While the word “acid” might suggest it is harsh and potentially damaging to the skin, hyaluronic acid is not used in its acidic form in skincare products. It is usually used in its salt form, sodium hyaluronate.
In skincare, active acids such as salicylic acid usually lower the skin’s pH and exfoliate it by breaking the bonds between dead skin cells.
Hyaluronic acid, in contrast, is used to hydrate the skin. It is a humectant, an ingredient that attracts and retains water molecules.
Hyaluronic acid has three qualities that make it suitable for skincare: it’s soluble (can be dissolved in water), biocompatible (meaning it’s not harmful to the body), and biodegradable (naturally breaks down into non-toxic, simpler substances).
In skincare products, hyaluronic is used in different forms. Smaller hyaluronic molecules can penetrate deeper into the skin and hydrate the lower levels. In products this is often advertised as “anti-ageing”, because it stimulates the production of collagen (a structural protein in the skin), and helps to improve elasticity and reduce the appearance of fine lines.
Larger hyaluronic acid molecules remain on the skin’s surface and have an immediate hydrating effect, preventing water evaporation from the skin.
Hyaluronic acid helps the skin attract and retain water molecules for hydration. Art_Photo/Shutterstock
Any risks?
Hyaluronic acid is generally a safe ingredient, even for sensitive skin. But products advertised as “hyaluronic acid skincare” may contain other ingredients which can cause irritation.
In particular, fragrances, preservatives and surfactants (ingredients that produce foam and help wash away oil and dirt) may be safe for skin but burn or otherwise irritate the eyes.
This is because the cornea and conjuctiva (the thin membrane covering the eye) are much more sensitive than the skin.
How are skincare ingredients regulated?
Unlike medicines and products used for therapeutic reasons, which are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), general cosmetic products do not require pre-market safety testing or approval.
This creates a potential gap where defective products remain on the market, only to be recalled after adverse reactions occur.
Are these products appropriate for children?
Most scientific research on active ingredients – including hyaluronic acid – has been evaluated in older populations. This leaves a gap in understanding how they affect teen and preteen skin.
Many products are designed for ageing and/or specific skin types, and are largely unnecessary for children and younger people.
In some cases, they can potentially be harmful to their skin. For example, unless prescribed by a dermatologist, it’s advisable for young people to avoid retinoid products (containing retinol or retinal) as they can cause redness, peeling and drying.
Similarly, products with alpha hydroxy acids can cause irritation, itching, redness and may worsen acne in young skin.
So, what should younger people look for?
Preteens and teens should avoid products containing active ingredients such as retinol, vitamin C, alpha- and beta- hydroxy acids, and peptides, as well as those labelled with terms such as anti-ageing, wrinkle-reducing, brightening, or firming.
To keep skin clean and protected, teenagers can use a good cleanser, a simple moisturiser and a broad spectrum SPF 30 or 50 sunscreen.
It’s best to opt for gentle, fragrance-free cleansers and moisturisers suitable for all skin types. Consulting with a pharmacist can provide personalised recommendations based on individual skin needs.
Laurence Orlando is a council member with the Australian Society of Cosmetic Chemists.
Zoe Porter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When we think about flood management, higher stop banks, stronger levees and concrete barriers usually come to mind. But what if the best solution – for people and nature – isn’t to confine rivers, but to give them more space?
This alternative is increasingly being considered as an approach to mitigating flood risk. But allowing rivers room to move also delivers ecological benefits far beyond flood risk reduction. It supports biodiversity, improves water quality and stores carbon.
As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme floods, rethinking our approach to managing floodplain rivers has never been more urgent.
Climate change, floods and river confinement
Climate change is amplifying flood risks worldwide, and Aotearoa New Zealand is no exception. Large floods are expected to become much more frequent and severe, threatening communities, infrastructure and ecosystems.
Many of these risks are made worse by past management decisions that have artificially confined rivers within narrow channels, cutting them off from their natural floodplains.
Floodplain river systems have historically been dynamic, shifting across landscapes over time. But extensive stop banks, modification of river channels and land development have restricted this natural variability.
Strangling rivers in this way transfers and heightens flood risks downstream by forcing water through confined channels at greater speeds. It also degrades ecosystems that rely on the natural ebb and flow of river processes.
The Waiau River, a gravel-bed braided river in the South Island, has been constrained by land development, primarily for agriculture. Background satellite image: Google (c) 2025 Airbus, CC BY-SA
Giving rivers space to roam
The idea of allowing rivers to reclaim space on their floodplains is not new.
In the Netherlands, the Room for the River programme was a response to flooding in 1995 that led to large-scale evacuations of people and cattle. In England, predictions that economic risks associated with flooding will increase 20-fold within this century ignited the Making Space for Water strategy.
However, these initiatives typically remain focused on flood protection, overlooking opportunities to maximise ecological benefits. Our new research shows that well-designed approaches can deliver ecological gains alongside flood protection.
This is crucial because floodplain river systems are among the most valuable ecosystems. They provide about a quarter of all land-based ecosystem services such as water retention and pollutant filtration, as well as educational, recreational and cultural benefits.
Managing rivers for variability
A fundamental shift in river management involves acknowledging and accommodating natural variability. Floodplain rivers are not static: they change across landscapes and through time, responding to seasonal flows, sediment movement and ecological processes.
Braided rivers are an example of floodplain rivers that have natural variability and diverse habitat types. Angus McIntosh, CC BY-SA
Our research synthesises the ecological processes that are enabled when floodplain rivers have room to move.
Rivers that are not unnaturally confined are typically more physically complex. For instance, along with the main river channel, they might have smaller side channels, or areas where the water pools and slows, springs popping up from below ground to re-join the surface waters, or ponds on the floodplain.
A diverse range of habitats supports a rich variety of plant and animal life. Even exposed gravel, made available in rivers that flow freely, provides critical nesting sites for endangered birds.
Biodiversity is not one-dimensional. Instead, it exists and operates at multiple scales, from a small floodplain pond to a whole river catchment or wider. In a dynamic, ever-changing riverscape, we might find the genetic composition of a species varying in different parts of the river, or the same species of fish varying in their body size, depending on the habitat conditions.
These examples of natural biological variability enable species and ecosystems to be resilient in the face of uncertain future conditions.
Rivers that have room to move on their floodplains are highly dynamic. This diagram shows the main types of ecological variability in a free-flowing river: physical variability, habitat heterogeneity and variable ecosystem processes. Adapted from McCabe et al. 2025 Nature Water, CC BY-SA
At a larger scale, the type and number of species that live in different floodplain river habitats also varies. This diversity of biological communities produces variation in the functions ecosystems perform across the river, such as the uptake of nutrients or processing of organic matter. This can even help to diversify food webs.
These variations mean not all species or groups of species in the river will be vulnerable to the same disturbances – such as droughts or floods – at the same time. This is because plants and animals in rivers have evolved to take advantage of long-term rhythms of floods and droughts in different ways.
For instance, the cottonwood poplars of the southwest United States time their seed release with the highly predictable rhythms of snowmelt-driven spring floods in that part of the world. In Aotearoa New Zealand, whitebait fish species typically deposit their eggs during high autumn flows, which then get transported to sea as larvae during high winter flows.
Some animals need multiple habitats within the river for different stages of life. Other creatures travel from afar to use river floodplains for only a short time. The latter includes the banded dotterel (Charadrius bicinctus), endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand. This bird travels as far as 1,700km to nest on braided-river gravels each spring. Banded dotterels are in decline, and they rely on habitats provided by rivers that have space to roam.
The endangered black-fronted tern (Chlidonias albostriatus) uses gravel bar habitats on river floodplains for nesting. Angus McIntosh, CC BY-SA
A call for more sustainable river management
As climate change accelerates, we must rethink how we manage our waterways. Reinforcing levees and deepening channels may seem like logical responses to increased flood risk, but these approaches often exacerbate long-term vulnerabilities and transfer risk elsewhere.
We call for practitioners to broaden the scope of values included in river management policy and programmes to include ecological variability.
Nature-based solutions are approaches that seek to benefit both people and nature. By working with nature rather than against it, we can create landscapes that are more resilient, adaptive, and supportive of both people and biodiversity.
It’s time to embrace a new paradigm for river management – one that sees rivers not as threats to be controlled, but as lifelines to be protected and restored.
Christina McCabe receives funding through an Aho Hīnātore doctoral research scholarship at the University of Canterbury.
Jonathan Tonkin receives funding from a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship and the Centre of Research Excellence Te Pūnaha Matatini. He also receives funding from the Antarctic Science Platform and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has recalled that 20 journalists were killed during the six-year Philippines presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, a regime marked by fierce repression of the press.
Former president Duterte was arrested earlier this week as part of an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity linked to his merciless war on drugs. He is now in The Hague awaiting trial.
The watchdog has called on the administration of current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr to take strong measures to fully restore the country’s press freedom and combat impunity for the crimes against media committed by Duterte’s regime.
“Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Rodrigo Duterte said in his inauguration speech on 30 June 2016, which set the tone for the rest of his mandate — unrestrained violence against journalists and total disregard for press freedom, said RSF in a statement.
During the Duterte regime’s rule, RSF recorded 20 cases of journalists killed while working.
Among them was Jesus Yutrago Malabanan, shot dead after covering Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war for Reuters.
Online harassment surged, particularly targeting women journalists.
Maria Ressa troll target The most prominent victim was Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and founder of the news site Rappler, who faced an orchestrated hate campaign led by troll armies allied with the government in response to her commitment to exposing the then-president’s bloody war.
“The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is good news for the Filipino journalism community, who were the direct targets of his campaign of terror,” said RSF’s Asia-Pacific bureau director Cédric Alviani.
RSF’s Asia-Pacific bureau director Cédric Alviani . . . “the Filipino journalism community were the direct targets of [former president Rodrigo Duterte]’s campaign of terror.” Image: RSF
“President Marcos and his administration must immediately investigate Duterte’s past crimes and take strong measures to fully restore the country’s press freedom.”
The repression carried out during Duterte’s tenure continues to impact on Filipino journalism: investigative journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio has been languishing in prison since her arrest in 2020, still awaiting a verdict in her trial for “financing terrorism” and “illegal possession of firearms” — trumped-up charges that could see her sentenced to 40 years in prison.
With 147 journalists murdered since the restoration of democracy in 1986, the Philippines remains one of the deadliest countries for media workers.
Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.
A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.
Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.
Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.
Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.
Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.
The Christchurch Town Hall protest. Video:PSNA
Real death toll The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.
One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.
The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.
At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.
Pro=Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday to picket Foreign Minister Winston Peters at his state of the nation speech.Image: Saige England/APR
This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).
Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.
He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.
Ben Vorderegger in keffiyeh was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before being thrown out of the Christchurch Town Hall meeting. Image: Saige England/APR
Condemned movement Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.
This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.
Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.
Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.
After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.
PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.
The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.
PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester) . . . the failure of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is “bloody disgraceful”. Image; Saige England/APR
Protester released The protester was later released without any charges being laid.
A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”
I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..
“The words Winston is terrified to say . . . ” poster at the Christchurch pro-Palestinian protest. Image: Saige England/APR
It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.
He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.
From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.
Populist threats The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.
Yet he was on record for doing so.
I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.
Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.
The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.
He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.
“He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”
Refusal ‘unprecedented’ “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.
“That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.
“Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.
“Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.
“If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.
“New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”
New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event, dismissing protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?” Image: Saige England/APR
Only staged questions The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.
He warms to journalists who warm to him.
The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.
Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.
Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific.
Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday. Image: Saige England/APR
Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.
A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.
Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.
Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.
Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.
Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.
Real death toll The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.
One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.
The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.
At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.
Pro-Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday to picket Foreign Minister Winston Peters at his state of the nation speech. Image: Saige England/APR
This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).
Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.
He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.
Ben Vorderegger in keffiyeh was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before being thrown out of the Christchurch Town Hall meeting. Image: Saige England/APR
Condemned movement Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.
This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.
Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.
Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.
After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.
PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.
The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.
PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester) . . . the failure of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is “bloody disgraceful”. Image; Saige England/APR
Protester released The protester was later released without any charges being laid.
A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”
I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..
“The words Winston is terrified to say . . . ” poster at the Christchurch pro-Palestinian protest. Image: Saige England/APR
It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.
He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.
From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.
Populist threats The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.
Yet he was on record for doing so.
I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.
Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.
The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.
He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.
“He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”
Refusal ‘unprecedented’ “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.
“That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.
“Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.
“Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.
“If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.
“New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”
New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event, dismissing protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?” Image: Saige England/APR
Only staged questions The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.
He warms to journalists who warm to him.
The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.
Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.
Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday. Image: Saige England/APR
