iodiversity is the bedrock of life and a cornerstone of sustainable development.
Yet humanity is destroying biodiversity at lightening pace – the result of pollution, climate crisis, ecosystem destruction, and – ultimately – short-term interests fuelling the unsustainable use of our natural world.
Biodiversity loss is a global challenge. No one country, however rich or powerful, can address it alone. Nor can they live without the rich biodiversity that defines our planet.
As we pursue sustainable development, we must transform how we produce and consume, and how we value nature, and deliver on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework – the world’s blueprint to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. We need policies, regulations, and other incentives to support sustainable livelihoods and build strong, green economies.
That means governments building on progress made at CBD COP16, including by delivering domestic and international finance, and shifting public subsidies and other financial flows away from activities that harm nature. And it means countries delivering National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans that put the Framework into effect, address inequality, advance sustainable development, respect traditional knowledge, and empower women, girls, Indigenous People and more.
As the theme of this year’s International Day reminds us, living in “harmony with nature and sustainable development” is humanity’s path to a better world for us all. Together, let’s take it.
***
La diversité biologique est au fondement de la vie et l’une des pierres angulaires du développement durable.
Pourtant, l’humanité est en train de l’anéantir à une vitesse fulgurante du fait à la fois de la pollution, de la crise climatique, de la destruction des écosystèmes et, in fine, de la poursuite de l’intérêt à court terme qui favorise une exploitation non durable de l’environnement naturel.
La perte de biodiversité est un problème mondial. Aucun pays, aussi riche ou puissant soit-il, ne peut y remédier seul. Aucun ne peut non plus se passer de cette biodiversité dont la richesse caractérise notre planète.
Tandis que nous avançons sur la voie du développement durable, nous devons transformer nos façons de produire, de consommer et de valoriser la nature et appliquer le Cadre mondial de la biodiversité de Kunming-Montréal, à savoir le plan d’action mondial visant à enrayer et à inverser la perte de biodiversité. Nous avons besoin de politiques, de réglementations et d’autres mesures incitatives qui favorisent des modes de subsistance durables et consolident les économies vertes.
À cette fin, les États doivent mettre à profit les avancées obtenues à la seizième session de la Conférence des Parties à la Convention sur la diversité biologique, notamment en procédant à des investissements aux niveaux national et international et en ne subventionnant plus et en ne finançant plus les activités qui nuisent à la nature. Il faut également que les pays élaborent des stratégies et des plans d’action nationaux en faveur de la biodiversité qui viennent appliquer le Cadre, remédier aux inégalités, favoriser le développement durable, respecter les connaissances traditionnelles et donner des moyens d’action aux femmes, aux filles, aux peuples autochtones et à d’autres encore.
Comme nous le rappelle le thème de la Journée internationale de cette année, vivre « en harmonie avec la nature et le développement durable » est la voie qui permettra à l’humanité de créer un monde meilleur pour tous et toutes. Empruntons-la ensemble !
Ahead of UK summit, FM says Winter Fuel Payment must be restored.
The UK needs a national mission to raise living standards and provide people with hope that things will get easier, starting with the restoration of a Winter Fuel Payment to all pensioner households, First Minister John Swinney has said.
Speaking ahead of talks with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in London, the First Minister said he will press for action to help people struggling with the ongoing cost of living crisis, amid increasing inflation and international economic instability.
Mr Swinney said the first action of the UK Government must be to accept the cut to the Winter Fuel Payment was wrong and announce a restoration so all pensioners get a payment.
The First Minster said people need to believe things can get easier and that he plans to raise specific concerns relating to Scotland’s economy with the Prime Minister which could help accelerate economic growth. This includes the impact on Scotland of the recently announced UK-US trade deal, the agreement reached with the European Union, Carbon Capture and the case for a bespoke migration policy for Scotland.
Mr Swinney will be in London for a programme of meetings, including a bilateral with the Prime Minister, a multilateral with the First Minister of Wales, First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and a plenary session of the Council of Nations and Regions.
First Minister John Swinney said:
“People across the UK are living through a period of huge uncertainty and for some, that is undermining the trust they have in government.
“Cutting the winter fuel payment saw the UK Government breaking promises and removing vital financial support for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Having effectively conceded the argument by announcing a partial U-turn, the Prime Minister should accept the cut was wrong and restore a universal winter fuel payment.
“In Scotland, we are introducing universal winter heating payments through our Cost of Living Guarantee. This will see payment made to all pensioner households, with the poorest receiving the most support which is fair amid ongoing pressures.
“If the UK government want to provide people with hope that things will get easier, the Prime Minister should restore the winter fuel payment as part of a new national mission to raise living standards.
“I will raise this issue with him alongside other critical issues, including our proposal for a Scottish Graduate Visa, Carbon Capture and what impacts recent trade deals will have on Scottish producers and businesses.
“We are willing to work with him and the UK Government, but the question is whether he is willing to work with Scotland and give people hope that a better future is possible.”
ENDS
The First Minister will hold bilateral talks with the Prime Minister in London on Friday 23 May.
The First Minister is then due to join the First Minister of Wales, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland for further talks, before joining a meeting of the UK Government’s Council of Nations and Regions.
Pay equity protest outside parliament on budget day, May 22 2025.Getty Images
In 1936, when the National Party was created through a merger of the United and Reform parties, there was a recognition among the power brokers that attracting women’s votes was crucial.
National’s women’s organisations were integral to mobilising support. Throughout the 1940s, the party’s publicity material promised the women of New Zealand a happy family life. This was a consistent approach over the next 20 years, and National was rewarded with the women’s vote.
Intermittent research on gender differences in vote choice between 1963 and 1993 indicate women made up between 45% and 51% of National’s support compared to 36% and 43% of Labour’s support.
After 1996, this trend became less consistent. The New Zealand Election Study indicates a decreasing share of the women’s vote going to National, and fluctuations in vote choice among both women and men.
Given the advent of proportional representation, some volatility may be expected. But there are also some constants. There is evidence women are more likely than men to support government spending on social policy, and they are significantly less likely than men to vote for National’s coalition partners NZ First and ACT.
Now, with Budget 2025 – in particular its reliance on funds that would otherwise have gone towards settling pay equity claims – National’s historical success at attracting the women’s vote may be under threat.
Growth before pay equity
The budget represents a ruthless determination to deliver economic growth, including through its centrepiece “Investment Boost” tax breaks for businesses investing in productive assets.
There is additional funding for health, defence, education and disability services, and the establishment of a social investment fund, and the budget left national superannuation untouched (for the remainder of this coalition government’s term, at least).
It focused instead on KiwiSaver. Contributions from employers and employees will increase from 3% to 4%, while the government contribution will be halved for those earning under NZ$180,000 and cancelled for those earning over this amount.
In summary, the new operational spend comes to $6.7 billion while savings, reprioritised spending and revenue-raising initiatives totalled $5.3 billion. As a result, the government has produced the lowest operational allowance in a decade ($1.3 billion) and promised $4 billion in new capital expenditure.
But it was the radical restructuring and cancellation of pay equity for a range of undervalued female-dominated occupations that funded this budget. Almost half of the $12 billion recouped will be spent on the business tax incentives.
The government expects the initiative will increase GDP and wages by 1% to 1.5% over the next 20 years. But given the gender-segregated structure of New Zealand’s labour market, it may take some time for women to benefit from the Investment Boost.
Pay equity peril: Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivers the budget while Prime Minister Christopher Luxon looks on. Getty Images
The gender gap and economic growth
Applying a systematic and evidence-based gender analysis as part of the budget preparation process would have revealed more inclusive ways of delivering economic growth.
Closing these gaps could potentially add a 0.1 percentage point of additional economic growth per year, culminating in a 3.9% boost to GDP in the next 35 years.
Moreover, increasing women’s labour force participation may be a valuable mechanism to limit declines in the size of the labour force, given the rapidly ageing population.
Such an outcome would require increased government investment in childcare and early childhood education for under twos, ideally for more than 20 hours per week.
This would be a significant investment, given OECD data shows the net cost of childcare in New Zealand is as much as 38% of a two-earner couple’s average earnings (after accounting for government subsidies or benefits). This is considerably more expensive than most OECD member states.
Potential cost to National
Income and spending averages often mask more extreme impacts for different groups of women and men. For example, traditional economic models value labour used in the production of goods and services in the “market economy” but exclude the production of goods and services for their own use.
For wāhine Māori, non-market work includes care for whānau, community and land, as well as upholding the mana of the marae, and the intergenerational transfer of knowledge.
Finally, implementing pay equity, recognising the economic value of the unpaid care economy, and providing increased financial support for childcare, would also contribute to closing the gender pension gap.
Westpac data shows men have an average KiwiSaver balance 16% higher than women’s, most likely attributable to gender wage gaps and parenting career breaks.
Therefore the reduction in government contributions to KiwiSaver, and National’s desire to lift the retirement age, matter more to women because statistically they have a longer retirement to fund.
Budget 2025 came at a cost to many women in New Zealand, and it may yet come at a cost for National.
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.
runitstraight24/instagram.com, The Conversation, CC BY
Created in Australia, “Run It Straight” is a new, ultra-violent combat sport.
Across a 20×4 metre grassed “battlefield,” players charge at full speed toward one another.
Alternating between carrying the ball (ball runner) and defending (tackler), victory is awarded via knockout (a competitor cannot continue), or a judge’s decision based on an athlete’s dominance during the collisions.
Despite neuroscientists issuing grave warnings about the brutal sport’s risks, Run It Straight’s viral popularity, including endorsement among high profile athletes, is accelerating.
Footage showed some participants convulsing after their collisions as the winner celebrated, surrounded by children.
Drawing hundreds of spectators and millions of online views, the full-speed collision challenge is already turning its violence and social media footprint into commercial success abroad, securing interest in the United States.
In ancient times, symbolic cultural displays of power and physical dominance featured in combat sports such as wrestling, boxing, pankration (a mixed martial art combining boxing and wrestling) and even armoured foot races.
This brutal entertainment is reflected in contemporary collision sports such as the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL).
In recent decades however, the danger of concussion has resulted in most contact sports changing rules and regulations to protect athletes from head injuries.
Various measures have been implemented to mitigate, eliminate and treat head trauma.
Considering this multi-pronged effort to make contact sports safer, the violence of Run It Straight is jarring.
Why are these new sports so popular?
With its origins as a social media challenge, Run It Straight is perfect content for short-form social media platforms: an entire competition can be distilled into a 30-second highlight.
Run It Straight’s accessible and minimalist format is also attractive to fans compared to many collision sports that have complex rules and strategies. This can be a barrier to interest, engagement and commercial returns.
Run It Straight and other emerging, violent sports such as Power Slap (a fight sport where contestants slap each other so hard they can be knocked unconscious) are simplistic and brutal.
But athletes in most traditional collision sports use their physical ability and skill to evade contact. Similarly, boxing is not just about strikes to the head, it is punch evasion, physical fitness and point scoring.
But the visual spectacle and shock of two people running toward one another for an inevitable collision is a form of violence that appeals to an increasing number of sport fans.
The risks involved
Run It Straight is a new sport, and to our knowledge there is no empirical peer-reviewed research focusing on it.
With Run it Straight appearing to lack the medical resources and infrastructure of professional sports organisations, and with the competition’s expressed intent to have participants collide at high speed, the risk of significant injury is high.
Power Slap, though, has been the subject of empirical research. A 2024 study reported many of the sport’s combatants showed visible signs of concussion (motor incoordination, slowness to get up and blank and vacant looks during bouts).
An opportunity for ‘traditional’ sports?
The rise of Run It Straight and Power Slap creates a unique opportunity for the governing bodies of contact codes such as AFL, NRL and rugby union to highlight what sets them apart.
Key to this is athlete safety. For years, governing bodies in these codes have invested time and resources to implement concussion management protocols at professional and community levels.
Currently, the tournament-based format for individual adult participants allows Run It Straight to operate without the broader governance responsibilities of football codes.
However, it is because of those governance responsibilities that the football codes can amplify their athlete wellbeing credentials to reassure participants and parents who may be nervous about concussion risks.
Second, the football codes are organised team sports played with multiple players on a team, facilitating skill acquisition, teamwork, mental wellbeing and physical fitness. While there appears to be a degree of camaraderie during Run It Straight events, it is evidently a one-on-one competition.
Ultimately, the rise and evident popularity of Run It Straight and Power Slap provides a stark reminder there will always be a section of society that is drawn to high-risk behaviours.
In turn, the football codes should look to highlight the value of balance and their athlete wellbeing credentials.
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.
Have your say on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill The Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is calling for submissions on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill. The closing date for submissions is 11.59pm on Friday, 4 July 2025.
The bill is a member’s bill in the name of Andy Foster. The bill would amend the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Act 2022 to place a new duty on financial institutions to provide financial services to customers except in situations based on law or for valid and verifiable commercial grounds.
Tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee what you think:
Make a submissionon the bill by 11.59pm on Friday, 4 July 2025.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation will continue the fight to save men’s lives after the Budget failed to fund an early detection pilot for prostate cancer.
President Danny Bedingfield said “we have been talking to the last government and now the new government for the last two years on funding two regional pilots for early detection screening of prostate cancer at an approximate cost of only $6.4 million over four years.
“Everyone acknowledges that the sooner cancer is detected, the better clinical outcomes. We just have two questions for the government – is cancer that is specific to men not important? And what is the barrier to a prostate cancer screening pilot?
“Over 4,000 dads, husbands, sons and brothers are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more than 700 die of the disease every year. We think these lives matter. “We are at a loss as to why cancer specific to men doesn’t seem to rate with either the last government, or now this new government. Prostate cancer screening is seen as inevitable by health officials and is supported by New Zealand’s Urological Society.
“While the pilot was not funded in the Budget, we remain hopeful that money can be found by reprioritising a tiny part of the $30 billion vote health spending will get it underway. “In addition to putting miniscule funding into the proposed early detection pilots, our Health Minister should also accept an invitation from Europe to a join a useful world leading cancer study – the Praise–U consortium,” Bedingfield said.
“This is a world-leading initiative that aims to enhance the ability for early detection of men with prostate cancer so they can access early treatment to reduce unnecessary early deaths,” Bedingfield says.
“However, after today, we are left wondering if men’s health is important,” Bedingfield concluded.
The Retirement Commissioner welcomes news the Government is making changes to KiwiSaver which early estimates suggest will leave more New Zealanders with more money saved for their retirement.
Announced in the Budget 2025, employee and employer contributions to KiwiSaver will move to 3.5% from 1 April 2026 and then to 4% from 1 April 2028. Alongside these changes, the government contribution is decreasing to 25% (i.e 25 cents for every $1 contributed to a maximum of $260.72) and removed entirely for those earning over $180,000, effective from 1 July.
The Sorted KiwiSaver Calculator is currently the only tool in the country which reflects the Budget 2025 announcements, giving New Zealanders the chance to see how the changes will impact them and what their retirement savings would have looked like without them. (ref. https://sorted.org.nz/tools/kiwisaver-calculator/ )
There are approximately 3.4 million KiwiSaver members, and 2.2 million received an employer and a government contribution or only a government contribution in 2024.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says, “we’re pleased to see the Government take on board some of the key recommendations we made in 2024, including introducing a higher default contribution rate of 4% for employees and matched by their employers, and extending employer contributions to those aged 16 and 17. We’d also recommended employer contributions for those over 65 but unfortunately the latter has been excluded from these latest changes.
“While increasing contribution rates is generally beneficial for salary and wage earners who qualify for an employer contribution, not everyone benefits from these changes. The reduction in the government contribution will hit low-income earners, Māori, women, and the self-employed the hardest.”
In March, the Retirement Commission released its annual analysis of KiwiSaver balances data which revealed the gender retirement savings gap shows men having on average 25% higher KiwiSaver balances compared to women.
“It’s a shame there are so few government incentives for a scheme that underpins private saving for retirement. I would at least have liked to see some of the savings from reducing government contributions be applied to serving those groups where we see the widest retirement savings gaps,” says the Retirement Commissioner.
“We also hope employers respect the spirit of the changes and understand why they were necessary, passing the savings onto their staff rather than including them as part of total remuneration – which should be banned.”
The Retirement Commission will continue to explore the impacts of these changes as part of the 2025 Review of Retirement Income Policies (RRIP) with a focus on how the Government could most effectively reduce gaps in retirement income outcomes. Summary of the Budget 2025 changes
Employee and employer contributions move to 3.5% from 1 April 2026 and then to 4% from 1 April 2028.
A new temporary savings reduction will be introduced, modelled on the existing temporary savings suspension, allowing members to opt to reduce their contribution rate to 3% for a period of up to 12 months. Members can take multiple temporary reductions. If a member takes a savings reduction their employer can match them at that rate.
The government contribution matching rate is reduced to 25% (i.e. 25 cents for every $1 contributed up to a maximum government contribution of $260.72) from 1 July 2025.
Members with an annual income of more than $180,000 will no longer be eligible for the government contribution from 1 July 2025.
16- and 17-year-olds become eligible for employer contributions from 1 April 2026 (note they will not be auto-enrolled. The age for auto-enrolment remains at 18, but if they join, or have already joined, and contribute, they will be eligible for the matching employer contribution).
16- and 17-year-olds become eligible for the government contribution, if they contribute, from 1 July 2025.
Notes: The 2025 Review of Retirement Income Policies (RRIP) Every three years the Retirement Commission is asked to undertake a comprehensive review of retirement income policies based on terms of reference set by the Government. The 2025 RRIP includes focus on research relating to KiwiSaver and other savings, emerging trends and how these will play out over the next 25 years, the experiences of women and the self-employed in retirement, spending down retirement savings and how New Zealand’s retirement policies compare globally. It will support the development of recommendations to ensure New Zealand’s retirement income system remains fit for purpose. The final report will be completed by December 2025.
More info: 2025 Review of Retirement Income Policies | Retirement Commission Te Ara Ahunga Ora
Sorted’s a free service run by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission, the government-funded, independent agency dedicated to helping New Zealanders get ahead financially. As New Zealand’s trusted personal finance site, Sorted has the tools and information needed to tackle debt, plan and budget, save and invest, dial up KiwiSaver, plan for retirement, protect what’s important and manage a mortgage. No matter where people are at when it comes to money – just starting a first job or wrapping up a successful career – Sorted lets helps New Zealanders to fine-tune your finances and get ahead money-wise. Sorted KiwiSaver Calculator – has been updated to reflect the latest changes announced in the Budget. The calculator demonstrates the effect of KiwiSaver contributions on a first home deposit or retirement savings. It takes someone’s information on age, income, current KiwiSaver balance and fund type to project their future balance.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iain Boyd, Director of the Center for National Security Initiatives and Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
Posters that President Donald Trump used to announce Golden Dome depict missile defense as a shield.AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein
President Donald Trump announced a plan to build a missile defense system, called the Golden Dome, on May 20, 2025. The system is intended to protect the United States from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space.
Trump is calling for the current budget to allocate US$25 billion to launch the initiative, which the government projected will cost $175 billion. He said Golden Dome will be fully operational before the end of his term in three years and will provide close to 100% protection.
The Conversation U.S. asked Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer and director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder, about the Golden Dome plan and the feasibility of Trump’s claims. Boyd receives funding for research unrelated to Golden Dome from defense contractor Lockheed Martin.
Why does the United States need a missile shield?
Several countries, including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, have been developing missiles over the past few years that challenge the United States’ current missile defense systems.
These weapons include updated ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and new hypersonic missiles. They have been specifically developed to counter America’s highly advanced missile defense systems such as the Patriot and the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System.
For example, the new hypersonic missiles are very high speed, operate in a region of the atmosphere where nothing else flies and are maneuverable. All of these aspects combined create a new challenge that requires a new, updated defensive approach.
So it’s reasonable to think that, to ensure the protection of its homeland and to aid its allies, the U.S. may need a new missile defense capability.
Ukrainian forces are using the U.S.-made Patriot missile defense system against Russian ballistic missiles.
What are the components of a national missile defense system?
Such a defense system requires a global array of geographically distributed sensors that cover all phases of all missile trajectories.
First, it is essential for the system to detect the missile threats as early as possible after launch, so some of the sensors must be located close to regions where adversaries may fire them, such as by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Then, it has to track the missiles along their trajectories as they travel hundreds or thousands of miles.
These requirements are met by deploying a variety of sensors on a number of different platforms on the ground, at sea, in the air and in space. Interceptors are placed in locations that protect vital U.S. assets and usually aim to engage threats during the middle portion of the trajectory between launch and the terminal dive.
The U.S. already has a broad array of sensors and interceptors in place around the world and in space primarily to protect the U.S. and its allies from ballistic missiles. The sensors would need to be expanded, including with more space-based sensors, to detect new missiles such as hypersonic missiles. The interceptors would need to be enhanced to enable them to address hypersonic weapons and other missiles and warheads that can maneuver.
Does this technology exist?
Intercepting hypersonic missiles specifically involves several steps.
First, as explained above, a hostile missile must be detected and identified as a threat. Second, the threat must be tracked along all of its trajectory due to the ability of hypersonic missiles to maneuver. Third, an interceptor missile must be able to follow the threat and get close enough to it to disable or destroy it.
The main new challenge here is the ability to track the hypersonic missile continuously. This requires new types of sensors to detect hypersonic vehicles and new sensor platforms that are able to provide a complete picture of the hypersonic trajectory. As described, Golden Dome would use the sensors in a layered approach in which they are installed on a variety of platforms in multiple domains, including ground, sea, air and space.
These various platforms would need to have different types of sensors that are specifically designed to track hypersonic threats in different phases of their flight paths. These defensive systems will also be designed to address weapons fired from space. Much of the infrastructure will be multipurpose and able to defend against a variety of missile types.
In terms of time frame for deployment, it is important to note that Golden Dome will build from the long legacy of existing U.S. missile defense systems. Another important aspect of Golden Dome is that some of the new capabilities have been under active development for years. In some ways, Golden Dome represents the commitment to actually deploy systems for which considerable progress has already been made.
Is near 100% protection a realistic claim?
Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system has been described as the most effective system of its kind anywhere in the world.
But even Iron Dome is not 100% effective, and it has also been overwhelmed on occasion by Hamas and others who fire very large numbers of inexpensive missiles and rockets at it. So it is unlikely that any missile defense system will ever provide 100% protection.
The more important goal here is to achieve deterrence, similar to the stalemate in the Cold War with the Soviet Union that was based on nuclear weapons. All of the new weapons that Golden Dome will defend against are very expensive. The U.S. is trying to change the calculus in an opponent’s thinking to the point where they will consider it not worth shooting their precious high-value missiles at the U.S. when they know there is a high probability of them not reaching their targets.
CBS News covered President Donald Trump’s announcement.
Is three years a feasible time frame?
That seems to me like a very aggressive timeline, but with multiple countries now operating hypersonic missiles, there is a real sense of urgency.
Existing missile defense systems on the ground, at sea and in the air can be expanded to include new, more capable sensors. Satellite systems are beginning to be put in place for the space layer. Sensors have been developed to track the new missile threats.
Putting all of this highly complex system together, however, is likely to take more than three years. At the same time, if the U.S. fully commits to Golden Dome, a significant amount of progress can be made in this time.
What does the president’s funding request tell you?
President Trump is requesting a total budget for all defense spending of about $1 trillion in 2026. So, $25 billion to launch Golden Dome would represent only 2.5% of the total requested defense budget.
Of course, that is still a lot of money, and a lot of other programs will need to be terminated to make it possible. But it is certainly financially achievable.
How will Golden Dome differ from Iron Dome?
Similar to Iron Dome, Golden Dome will consist of sensors and interceptor missiles but will be deployed over a much wider geographical region and for defense against a broader variety of threats in comparison with Iron Dome.
A second-generation Golden Dome system in the future would likely use directed energy weapons such as high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves to destroy missiles. This approach would significantly increase the number of shots that defenders can take against ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles.
Iain Boyd receives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, a defense contractor that sells missile defense systems and could potentially benefit from the implementation of Golden Dome.
Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
Washington – U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) today joined President Donald Trump, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, and other Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) leaders at the White House today for a roundtable event to discuss the MAHA Commission Report.
You may click HERE or on the image above to watch the full event.
See the full transcript below from the White House event.
President Trump: “I have to say we have the greatest farmers in the world, and we love our farmers, and we want to pay respect to our farmers, and we always will. And we won the farmers by a lot in the election, in all, every election, all three elections, and we won by a lot. And I will never forget that, and they are foremost in our thought and representing, I think, the farmers better than just about anybody can do is Senator Roger Marshall, could you say a couple of words, Roger, please…”
Senator Marshall: “Mr. President, we’re not tired of winning yet. Congratulations. What a week you’ve had overseas, one win after another, One Big, Beautiful Bill across the House floor this morning. You’re the best closer in the game, and this is one of the greatest days of my life, professionally speaking, as well.”
“And I just want to acknowledge my MAHA mom out here as well, that my wife, Laina, was a MAHA nurse and a MAHA mom and a MAHA grandma. Now, Laina, will you please stand up as well?”
“Mr. President, you know, I spent 25 years delivering babies. Most every day. We saw a huge epidemic of diabetes of pregnancy, and this has exploded in so many different directions. Now we have an epidemic of mental health, in our youth, obesity rates, 20, 30% of our children on prescription drugs. 60, 70% of adults on a prescription drug. We can do better than this, and it does start with the farmer. It starts with soil health. And I just want you to know that our farmers are so committed to this as well, and so many of them are already doing great things. They’re making the soil healthier. They’re using less pesticides. They’re doing all the right things. It’s going to take a little bit more effort and time to get everybody with those practices, but the American farmer and rancher were the original environmentalists, the original conservationists, and they’ll be right here working beside us, and we appreciate your support of them as well.”
To watch the full remarks, click here.
Source: General Practice Owners Association (GenPro)
The General Practice Owners Association says patient fees could rise by 10 percent or more this year just to cover costs after the Budget did nothing to fix a funding and retention crisis in primary healthcare.
GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers said the Budget was a missed opportunity and primary healthcare is hugely disappointed once again.
“The government currently puts $1.3 billion or just 4 percent of its $30 billion health budget toward general practice. A 10 percent uplift was urgently required in 2025/26 just to catch up and maintain existing services, with more investment needed in later years. It didn’t happen.
“General practice will have a feeling of déjà vu after successive Budgets have failed to increase government funding to keep pace with rising costs and more complex health needs.
The result is that patients are waiting longer to see a doctor, practices are closing or reducing their services, and have significant staff shortages.”
On top of the 10 percent increase in funding that was needed not materialising, general practices will also have to adjust to prescription renewals being extended from three months to one year.
“Some general practices are at breaking point, and we’ll forego further income due to prescription changes. The end result is that communities are at risk of losing their family doctors.”
With nothing in the Budget, GenPro said its one remaining hope is that Health New Zealand uses its increase in operational funding to significantly increase funding for general practice when it makes its annual adjustment in June.
“We have to remain hopeful that Health New Zealand will use its operational budget to support general practice, although this hasn’t happened in the past to the extent that is needed,” said Dr Chambers.
GenPro members are owners and providers of general practices and urgent care centres throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. For more information visit www.genpro.org.nz
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
This photo taken on May 22, 2025 shows the opening ceremony of the 4th China-CEEC Expo & International Consumer Goods Fair in Ningbo, east China’s Zhejiang Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
NINGBO, May 22 — With over 8,000 featured products on display, from traditional goods like wines and cheese to cutting-edge varieties like VR glasses, the 4th China-CEEC Expo & International Consumer Goods Fair unveiled its curtain on Thursday, unleashing vast cooperation potential between China and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC).
The expo, running from Thursday to Sunday in Ningbo, east China’s Zhejiang Province, has attracted 435 enterprises from 14 CEEC countries and nine other countries, including the UK, France, Germany and Italy.
A total of 1,028 domestic companies are also attending the event, showcasing local distinctive industries and competitive consumer goods. The event also attracts more than 3,000 overseas buyers from 72 countries and regions. Tentative import deals worth over 10 billion yuan (about 1.39 billion U.S. dollars) are expected to be reached with CEEC partners during the event, according to the organizers.
In addition to traditional consumer goods, the expo also showcases vanguard digital and intelligent technologies, serving as a broad platform for presenting innovative breakthroughs in categories such as aircraft, VR devices, medical equipment and humanoid robots.
“The expo is a gateway for our products to reach international markets, and we plan to establish headquarters in CEEC to further explore and expand our presence in the region,” said Fan Rui, founder of Aoxue Ruishi Technology Co., Ltd., who brought his company’s extended reality (XR) glasses to the event.
Co-hosted by the Zhejiang provincial government and China’s Ministry of Commerce, the expo, initiated in 2019, has played an important role in increasing exports of CEEC products to the Chinese market, and cementing mutual understanding on cooperation between China and CEEC countries.
Data from China’s commerce ministry showed that in 2024, China’s trade with CEEC increased by 6.3 percent year over year, reaching a record high of 142.3 billion U.S. dollars.
People visit the 4th China-CEEC Expo & International Consumer Goods Fair in Ningbo, east China’s Zhejiang Province, May 22, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]People queue up to visit the Digital and Smart Manufacturing of CEEC exhibition area of the 4th China-CEEC Expo & International Consumer Goods Fair in Ningbo, east China’s Zhejiang Province, May 22. 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]Visitors enjoy a performance from Bulgaria during the 4th China-CEEC Expo & International Consumer Goods Fair in Ningbo, east China’s Zhejiang Province, May 22, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Senator Markey joined by Democratic Leader Schumer, Ranking Member Wyden, and climate advocates
Washington (May 22, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chair of the Senate Climate Change Task Force, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined by climate advocacy groups, today hosted a press conference to blast Republicans’ all-out assault on efforts to combat the climate crisis, including unprecedented actions to revoke the California Clean Air Act waivers and repeal clean energy tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
“The Trump administration has made one thing painfully clear: They are putting Oil Above All—above the law, above the economy, and above the health and wallets of working families. The repeal of the Clean Air Act waivers is yet another historic example of the lawlessness of today’s Republican party; no rule, no norm, no standard is safe if it stands between them and what their Big Oil donors want. They’re breaking precedent, breaking Senate process, and breaking public trust. As a result, we will see more asthma. More heart disease. More early deaths. More cancer. That will be the Trump and Republican legacy,” said Senator Markey. “By repealing clean energy and environmental protection funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, Republicans are attacking clean air and clean energy with their tax bill. Republicans are seeking to destroy the tools and programs which are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, easing costs for working families, and addressing air pollution in our communities. These attacks are dangerous and have far-reaching consequences for all.”
“When it comes to clean energy and the Republican agenda, I don’t believe we’ve seen this kind of economic self-sabotage in modern American times. Republicans are raising Americans’ electrical bills, destroying thousands of good-paying jobs, and sacrificing our energy security all to pay for handouts to big corporations and ultra-wealthy Trump donors. Back in the campaign, Trump told a room full of oil and gas executives that he’d let them control the agenda if they helped put him back in the White House, and clearly, he’s delivering on that horribly corrupt promise,” said Ranking Member Wyden.
“Congressional Republicans led a Big Oil-backed effort to circumvent their own rules in order to block California, and other states, from having stronger clean air standards for cars and trucks. This should not be a political or partisan issue, it’s about states’ ability to set standards – like the original tailpipe pollution limits set by Ronald Reagan – that deliver cleaner air for their citizens, said League of Conservation Voters’ Vice President of Federal Policy Matthew Davis. “At the same time, House Republicans have just passed their billionaire tax scam, the most anti-environmental bill in our nation’s history that will drive up families’ energy costs by hundreds of dollars per year. Right now, the Senate must stand up against the anti-environmental billionaire tax scam to protect our clean air and water, and cost-saving, jobs-creating clean energy.”
“Today Congress has decided to fundamentally deny states their rights to reduce pollution and protect public health. In environmental justice communities, people of color and lower income face the greatest rates of asthma and cancer. This action enables a continued unjust assault on overburdened communities choking on diesel fumes. A clean transportation sector benefits us all and we will continue to fight for one that’s healthier, cheaper, and accessible to everyone,” said Yosef Robele, Federal Policy Manager, WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Schiff, Murray, Cantwell Call Out Trump’s Outrageous, Partisan Decision to Slash Flood Protection Funding for Blue States
Army Corps work plan zeroes out hundreds of millions of dollars for key California and Washington waterway construction projects, among others — steering hundreds of millions to red states
WATCH: Padilla, Schiff blast the gutting of critical California water infrastructure funding
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, joined the Washington state Senate delegation for a press conference calling out President Trump’s outrageous, overtly political decision to zero out critical funding for Army Corps of Engineers construction projects in blue states like California and Washington while steering hundreds of millions more to red states.
Senators Padilla, Schiff, Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) criticized the Army Corps’ plan released late last week that announced their intention to zero out all Army Corps construction funding for California ($126 million), as well as cut $500 million for the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington state. This funding was included in the Corps’ Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget request, in the Senate’s bipartisan draft FY 2025 funding bill, and even in House Republicans’ draft FY 2025 funding bill. But the Trump Administration — using the new discretion afforded by the yearlong continuing resolution House Republicans drafted that was signed into law — ignored the draft bills and instead apportioned funding on a brazenly political basis.
The four California flood control projects losing Army Corps funding include the American River Common Features Levee Improvement Project, the Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project, the Lower San Joaquin River Project, and the West Sacramento Project. These projects will protect some of the most at-risk areas in the nation, including Sacramento County, which the Corps considers the most at-risk region for catastrophic flooding in the United States.
“When anyone takes the oath of office, even Donald Trump as President of the United States, you become the president for all Americans — not just for red states or for blue states, but for every state and every community equally,” said Senator Padilla. “Yet, since the minute Donald Trump returned to office, he’s set out to politicize the office he holds, now trying to take hundreds of millions of dollars in flood prevention funding away from the states that happened to not vote for him and redirect them to projects in states that supported his election. It’s absolutely wrong. In California, that means cutting every last dollar of funding that was allocated for certain flood control projects. For a president so obsessed with fighting waste, fraud, and abuse, I know where he can find it. He just has to look in the mirror. Communities up and down California — including farmers and farm workers in the Central Valley and Pajaro — will now be at a higher risk of flooding because Donald Trump’s playing politics with federal funding.”
“Natural disasters don’t discriminate based on whether a state is red or blue, and the administration and Congress shouldn’t either when it comes to protecting communities from natural disasters. This puts us on a very dangerous path, a path where anything can be on the chopping block for a partisan reason. Today, it’s funding for these projects. Tomorrow, it could be another form of funding meant to save lives. There will be a domino effect of threats aimed at blue states. When you’re elected to be president of the United States. You’re not a half president. You’re not president for only half of the country, not if you do the job right. These baseless attacks threaten millions of people from both parties whose lives are endangered by floods,” said Senator Schiff.
Overall, the Army Corps’ plans would steer roughly $258 million more in construction funding to red states while ripping away roughly $437 million in construction funding for blue states, relative to the Corps’ FY 2025 request, which was fully funded in the draft FY 2025 bills that were produced on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and by Republicans in the House. These requests have historically been fully funded. Trump’s work plan steers two thirds of all Army Corps construction funding to red states while the budget request and House and Senate bills would have split that funding evenly to red and blue states.
Padilla and Schiff voted against the continuing resolution earlier this year, which cut the Army Corps’ construction account by 44 percent.
Senator Padilla has fought tirelessly for California communities devastated by atmospheric river flooding. Last spring, he urged the Biden Administration to prioritize sustained federal investment in the Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project to protect disadvantaged communities along the central coast of California. In 2023, he met with families, small business owners, and farmers in Watsonville and Pajaro impacted by extreme storms after he and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18) successfully led the California Congressional delegation in urging the Biden Administration to approve a Major Disaster Declaration.
Additionally, Padilla successfully pushed for the inclusion of a study on the impact of extreme weather on Army Corps dams and levees in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
Video of Senator Padilla’s full remarks is available here, and Senator Schiff’s full remarks can be viewed here.
The Government’s decision to slash over 620 jobs at Kāinga Ora is another devastating blow to vulnerable communities, especially Māori and Pacific whānau who are overrepresented in the housing crisis.
The cuts include essential frontline roles, such as those in call centres and tenant support, who work every day with whānau in desperate need of safe, secure housing.
Te Kaihautū Māori of the PSA Janice Panoho says many of the workers losing their jobs are Māori and Pacific, whose cultural competence and lived experience are essential to connecting with communities in a way that upholds mana.
“By disestablishing 769 roles, the Government is actively removing Māori and Pacific workers who bring whakapapa, reo, tikanga and aroha to their roles,” says Panoho.
“These are the people who guide our whānau through complex housing systems and advocate for them in a system that often excludes them,” Panoho says.
“This is not just about job cuts. This is about a government turning its back on its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāinga Ora has been one of the few agencies striving to work alongside Māori to deliver housing solutions rooted in dignity, partnership and manaakitanga. Gutting its workforce is a betrayal.
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi condemns this move as a calculated assault on equity, cultural integrity, and frontline workers who serve our most at-risk families.
“We’ve seen this before under the previous Key Government, the sale of state housing and the forced removal of whānau from their homes, which led to widespread homelessness, with families left to live in cars, tents, and on the streets,” Panoho says.
“Now we are faced with this Government placing even more pressure on our communities without proper consultation with Iwi Maori and community leaders to maintain sustainable housing for our communities.
The PSA warns that these decisions will have lasting consequences. Kāinga Ora’s capacity to serve is being hollowed out, with a third of its workforce gone in just one year.
“This Government says it wants better outcomes for Māori, yet here we are, cutting the very services and people that support those outcomes,” says Panoho.
“This is not tino rangatiratanga. This is a continuation of systemic neglect that leaves our whānau homeless, our workers displaced, and our rights ignored.”
“Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi calls on the Government to halt these cuts, honour its commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and invest in public housing and frontline workers, not strip them away,” Panoho says.
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahiis Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest trade union, representing and supporting more than 95,000 workers across central government, state-owned enterprises, local councils, health boards and community groups.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma King, ARC DECRA Fellow in Screen Studies, Senior Lecturer in French Studies, Australian National University
Archival footage shows Tim Rarus, Greg Hlibok, Bridgetta Bourne-Firl and Jerry Covell, in Apple TV+ Deaf President Now! Apple TV+
In March 1988, students of the world’s only Deaf university started a revolution that made national news. Now, the first film to document this historic uprising is screening on Apple TV+.
By 1988, Washington DC’s Gallaudet University had been educating Deaf students in American Sign Language (ASL) for 124 years. But it had never had a Deaf president.
For the first time, two Deaf candidates were in the running for the top job. One was Gallaudet’s own Irving King Jordan. The second was Harvey Corson of the American School for the Deaf.
The third was Elisabeth Zinser, a hearing woman from the University of North Carolina Greensboro. She had no experience of Deaf community or knowledge of ASL.
As the hearing board of trustees met to choose a new leader, the student body waited with bated breath. Self-determination in higher education – by the Deaf, for the Deaf – was finally a possibility. But once again the board chose a hearing person, Zinser.
When chair Jane Spilman was questioned about the choice, she replied, “Deaf people are not ready to function in a hearing world.”
Incensed, Gallaudet students barricaded the campus, gave impassioned media interviews and took to marching. First they marched around the university – Zinser effigies burning – and then all the way to the Capitol.
The Deaf President Now protest became national news, leading to the resignations of Zinser and Spilman, and the appointment of Jordan as president. It also helped propel the Disability Rights Movement, contributed to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and inspired Deaf Pride movements around the world.
Jane Bassett Spilman and Elisabeth Zinser resigned as a result of the Deaf President Now movement. Apple TV+
Timely, vital and imperfect
The 2025 documentary Deaf President Now! opens with footage of a political act: not from the 1988 protests, but from the present day, as the movement’s original student leaders – Bridgetta Bourne, Jerry Covell, Greg Hlibok and Tim Rarus – advise on their interview setups.
One alerts the crew they can’t see the interpreter. Another explains how much signing space they need in the frame. A third asks, joking but incisive, “What’s the microphone for?”
These aren’t throwaway moments; they show how inclusion and authenticity are only possible when Deaf people are in control of their own stories.
The film excels in exposing the paternalistic attitude and tightly-held hearing power that has long shaped Deaf education.
The film’s most powerful moments are when it contrasts the board’s dismissive rhetoric against the eloquent, impassioned arguments of the Deaf student body. Through intimate interviews and carefully curated archival footage, the documentary dismantles prevailing presumption that Deaf individuals need hearing oversight to succeed.
At the same time, the film embodies a paradox that mirrors its subject matter, as it is co-directed by hearing filmmaker Davis Guggenheim and Deaf director Nyle DiMarco.
DiMarco has been active in the screen industry for more than a decade, in acting roles and as a producer on Netflix hits Deaf U (2020) and Audible (2021). Though his involvement represents progress, Guggenheim’s raises an uncomfortable question: when will Deaf filmmakers fully own their narratives and be entrusted to lead projects?
Nyle DiMarco and Davis Guggenheim co-directed the documentary, with interviews from several of the movement’s leading figures. Apple TV+
The collaboration reflects how stories celebrating Deaf empowerment often require hearing endorsement to reach a mainstream audience. The film’s distribution on Apple TV+ offers unprecedented visibility, but comes through channels controlled by hearing decision-makers.
This production context reminds us true representation extends beyond what appears onscreen, to who controls the storytelling process — a revolution unfinished in Deaf cinema.
Using film for Deaf empowerment
The industry may remain exclusive, but the camera itself can be a tool for Deaf power. Throughout history, Deaf individuals have harnessed film as a means of resistance.
The extensive archival footage in Deaf President Now! shows how, by 1988, film was already being used by the Deaf community as a form of advocacy. Through the blending of this footage with present-day interviews in ASL, we witness Deaf individuals taking ownership of their history and recounting it in their authentic language form.
The documentary also mirrors how media attention was integral to spreading the protest’s message back in 1988. This culminated in a national broadcast of a live debate between Zinser and Greg Hlibok, the then student body president.
To understand the film’s profound importance for the Deaf community, we must recognise how sign languages have historically been undocumented in their true form, with speech and writing considered superior modes of communication.
Deaf culture, language and community are powerful forces of resistance that have continually defied mainstream oppression.
Trump: a step back for the movement
While the film was long overdue, its arrival now is eerily relevant. Trump’s push for conservative policies – part of what he calls “Project 2025” – seeks to dismantle programs and funding that serve minority students, including disability groups.
Many of the protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act are under threat as a result, including fundamental rights to sign language and interpreting access in higher education and beyond.
According to the New York Times, hundreds of terms including “accessibility”, “disability”, “minority” and “inequality” are being limited or outright removed from official government materials. In some cases, grant proposals and contracts have been automatically flagged for including “woke” terminology.
The spirit of the Deaf President Now! resistance has never been more vital.
But if Deaf history has taught us anything, it’s that the Deaf community forges a deep sense of pride and connection in the face of such pressures. And films like Deaf President Now! show us how integral film is to this resistance.
Gemma King receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Samuel Martin and Sofya Gollan 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.
When KiwiSaver was introduced in 2007 it was built on a stark reality: New Zealand Super alone will not be enough for most people to retire with dignity.
As the population ages and the cost of superannuation continues to climb, the gap between what the state provides and what retirees actually need is only going to grow. KiwiSaver was designed to bridge that gap – to give New Zealanders a fighting chance at financial independence in retirement.
But changes to KiwiSaver laid out in this year’s budget undermine what was already an underperforming scheme.
Despite 17 years of operation, KiwiSaver balances remain shockingly low. As of mid-2024, the average sits around NZ$37,000. That’s barely enough for a couple of years’ worth of modest top-ups, let alone funding a comfortable retirement.
For many nearing retirement, balances are even lower. And about 40% of members aren’t actively contributing. That includes people on contribution holidays, in irregular work, or who opted out altogether. Many accounts are effectively dormant “ghost accounts” created by auto-enrolment and never activated.
Let’s be blunt: a retirement savings scheme that doesn’t result in meaningful savings for the majority of its members isn’t working.
The 2025 Budget from the National Party, ACT and NZ First, included changes to the KiwiSaver scheme. Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
Small cuts, big consequences
KiwiSaver’s design isn’t its only problem. Political decisions have steadily chipped away at the scheme’s effectiveness. Every tweak and cut might seem minor on its own. But together they’ve eroded the core engine of the scheme: compounding contributions over time.
Take the $1,000 kick-start payment from the state, scrapped in 2015. Left invested in a growth fund for 40 years, that single payment could have grown to over $8,000.
Or look at the member tax credit – an annual payment made by the government to eligible members. The reduction from $1,042 to $521.43 might seem modest, but over a working life, that change alone could shave more than $70,000 off your KiwiSaver balance. This year’s budget has cut it further to $260.72.
Then there’s the tax on employer contributions – the amount paid into KiwiSaver by employers. For someone earning $80,000 a year, that tax can reduce total contributions by around 1% of salary annually. Over 40 years, that means nearly $100,000 less at retirement.
These aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. They’re the difference between retiring with options and retiring with anxiety. The $200,000 that past policy changes have stripped from the average KiwiSaver balance could have provided an extra $170 a week in retirement – enough to cover basics like food, power or transport.
By eroding those balances now, we’re not saving money. We’re simply passing the bill to future governments and taxpayers who will have to pick up the slack.
The worst time to weaken saving
There’s never a good time to undermine a long-term savings scheme, but doing it during a cost-of-living crisis is especially reckless. People are already struggling to keep up with everyday expenses. Contributions to KiwiSaver – despite their long-term benefits – are one of the first things households cut when budgets are tight.
If people start to believe KiwiSaver won’t be there for them – or that it’s not worth the effort – they’ll opt out or reduce contributions. And the scheme, already struggling with engagement, will lose even more ground.
Which brings us to the current budget.
The changes to the member tax credit will undermine the core purpose of KiwiSaver, reducing the amount people will retire with by another $35,000 for someone investing for 40 years in a growth fund.
Income-testing the member tax credit, coming into effect on July 1 this year, is pitched as targeting support where it’s needed. But that assumes income is a good proxy for need. It isn’t. Plenty of people have high incomes now but low KiwiSaver balances due to career gaps, home purchases or starting late.
If we want to better target support, base it on balances, not income. That would help those with low savings regardless of their current salary – and encourage rebuilding after big life expenses, such as buying a first home.
Raising the minimum contribution rate from 3% to 4% of gross salary sounds promising. Nudging people into saving more is smart policy – in theory. Plus requiring higher employer contributions is a welcome benefit.
But with households stretched thin, there’s a real risk people will just cease contributing at all. The danger is we end up with a headline policy that looks bold but delivers little – or worse, backfires.
The bottom line
The bigger issue? These are tweaks around the edges. They don’t address the fundamental problem: KiwiSaver is not set up to deliver retirement security at scale.
Plenty of experts have put forward good ideas to improve it. But right now, the urgent priority isn’t invention – it’s protection. Every time we reduce incentives, chip away at contributions or confuse the message, we undermine the very idea that long-term saving is worth it.
A retirement savings scheme only works if people trust it. That means policy stability. That means recognising KiwiSaver not as a cost, but as a commitment – a promise that if you put money aside during your working life, the system will have your back when you stop.
KiwiSaver is at a crossroads. It can continue its slow drift into irrelevance –eroded by short-term thinking and piecemeal reform. Or it can be treated as the critical infrastructure it is: a tool for ensuring financial independence in retirement and relieving future pressure on the public purse.
Budget decisions should honour KiwiSaver’s original promise. We owe future retirees – and future taxpayers – nothing less.
Aaron Gilbert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor of Aboriginal political history, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Convenor: Indigenous Land & Justice Research Group, UNSW Sydney
First Nations people please be advised this article speaks of racially discriminating moments in history, including the distress and death of First Nations people.
On a cold day 25 years ago, a bitter wind swept up from the south, pushing against an endless throng of people crossing one of Australia’s most famous landmarks.
Some 250,000 people were walking across Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of Indigenous reconciliation. It was an event called Corroboree 2000.
It took more than six hours for the mass of people to make their way from north to south, into the city. Across the nation, in small towns and in the capital cities, bridge walks symbolised overcoming a difficult past and coming together.
But Australia’s relationship with First Nations people in the years since has been sometimes tumultuous, occasionally optimistic and often vexed. What legacy did the event leave?
A ‘decade of reconciliation’?
A “Decade of Reconciliation” started with the unanimous passage of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act through the federal parliament in 1991. “Reconciliation” was to be achieved between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by the centenary of Federation in 2001.
The act made a national commitment for the federal government to address both “Aboriginal disadvantage and aspirations”.
It didn’t, however, specify what reconciliation was or what a reconciled nation would look like. The 2001 deadline would come and go without any way of knowing if it had been achieved.
The amorphous nature of the concept likely contributed to the widespread political support for reconciliation. But whether it meant addressing Indigenous rights, or disadvantage, or both, was often decided down political party lines.
Some First Nations activists were unequivocal in their criticism of reconciliation. It was widely perceived as a poor substitute for Bob Hawke’s 1984 promise of national land rights, and later, Treaty.
The late Uncle Chicka Dixon renamed the movement “ReCONsillynation”. The “con” was the call to “walk together” as an alternative to Treaty and land rights.
Instead, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established in 1991. Its approach to reconciliation was largely about building knowledge and understanding among non-Indigenous Australians about Australian Indigenous lives, experience and history. This was seen as essential to advancing justice.
Changing hearts and minds
For more than a decade, the council worked to achieve its vision, recruiting thousands of participants to the cause. It produced educational materials to guide learning about First Peoples histories and cultures. It also promoted reconciliation activities in the community.
Community-led reconciliation activities proliferated quickly. Some of these continue today, helping establish a foundation for truth-telling.
Huge historical events were unfolding alongside this work. In 1992, the Mabo decision in the High Court ruled Australia was not terra nullius (land belonging to nobody) when it was claimed by Britain in 1770. This led to native title laws, which have made it possible for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to claim ownership of their traditional lands.
In 1997, the Bringing Them Home report highlighted the trauma caused to generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait children across Australia by removing them from their families. They are known as the Stolen Generations.
The report recommended all Australian governments apologise to Indigenous people for their involvement in the policies and practices of forcible child removal.
By 1999, all states and territory governments had apologised. The federal government had not.
A contested history
These seismic shifts in public conversation inevitably came to feature in federal politics.
In the 1996 election, the two leaders – Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating and Liberal leader John Howard – outlined very different political visions based on opposing approaches to Australian history.
While Keating was in office, he combined two causes – native title and the republic – hoping they would help generate a new story of the nation’s foundation.
He sought to replace the positive, comforting and Anglo-centric view of Australian history. He highlighted the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal people and cast doubt on the morality of British occupation.
Howard largely framed his history in opposition to Keating’s. Whereas Keating’s history dwelled on identifiable historical wrongs, Howard famously said Australians should “feel comfortable and relaxed about their history”.
For Howard, there was much to be proud of in the story of the nation’s past. He accused the Labor party of peddling “the rhetoric of apology and shame”, or what came to be known as the “black armband” view of the past.
Despite the recommendation of the Bringing Them Home report, Howard didn’t apologise to Indigenous people. He championed “practical outcomes” instead of “symbolism”, although ultimately failed to deliver either.
A historic culmination
With all these debates brewing throughout the 1990s, Australians used the new millennium to make their own large, symbolic gesture.
Corroboree 2000 was held over two days in May. At the first event held on May 27, Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders met at the Sydney Opera House. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation presented non-Indigenous leaders with two documents: the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and the Roadmap for Reconciliation.
All the leaders who took part left their handprints on a canvas to show their support.
But in the intervening years, the shape of reconciliation and what Indigenous people could expect from it changed.
Reflecting the Howard government’s emphasis on practical reconciliation, the council’s final report emphasised that “overcoming disadvantage is central to the reconciliation process”. The original brief for reconciliation to also address “Aboriginal aspirations” was forgotten.
Howard gave a speech at the event and expressed “regret” for the past treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but he did not apologise. This left many in the crowd unhappy.
The apology would eventually come in 2008 from Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.
Where are we now?
In his recent election victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised national unity. He again placed reconciliation at the forefront of the Australian government’s Indigenous affairs agenda, saying:
we will be a government that supports reconciliation with First Nations people, because we will be a stronger nation when we close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
In the aftermath of the Voice referendum, the Albanese government says it is focusing on First Nations economic independence and empowerment, along with continuing to “Close the Gap” in experiences of disadvantage.
So 25 years on from the bridge walk, reconciliation remains a feature of the government’s response to First Peoples’ calls for recognition and justice.
But reconciliation can be seen as a safe harbour to merely rebuild consensus, when more ambitious Indigenous affairs agendas stall or fail.
Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Anne Maree Payne has previously received research funding from Reconciliation Australia.
For the past 75 years, America’s nuclear umbrella has been the keystone that has kept East Asia’s great‑power rivalries from turning atomic.
President Donald Trump’s second‑term “strategic reset” now threatens to crack that arch.
By pressuring allies to shoulder more of the defence burden, hinting that US forces might walk if the cheques do not clear and flirting with a return to nuclear testing, Washington is signalling that its once‑ironclad nuclear guarantee is, at best, negotiable.
In Seoul, Tokyo and even Taipei, a once-unthinkable idea — building nuclear weapons — has begun to look disturbingly pragmatic.
Nuclear umbrella starting to fray
Extended deterrence is the promise the United States will use its own nuclear weapons, if necessary, to repel an attack on an ally.
The logic is brutally simple: if North Korea contemplates a strike on South Korea, it must fear an American retaliatory strike, as well.
The pledge allows allies to forgo their own bombs, curbing nuclear proliferation while reinforcing US influence.
The idea dates to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” military strategy, which relied on the threat of “massive retaliation” against the Soviet Union to defend Europe and Asia at a discount: fewer troops, more warheads.
John F. Kennedy replaced that hair‑trigger doctrine with a “flexible response” defence strategy. This widened the spectrum of options to respond to potential Soviet attacks, but kept the nuclear backstop in place.
By the 1990s, the umbrella seemed almost ornamental. Russia’s nuclear arsenal had rusted, China was keeping to a “minimal deterrent” strategy (maintaining a small stockpile of weapons), and US supremacy looked overwhelming.
In 2020, then-President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed the umbrella guarantee, though Obama had voiced aspirations for the long‑term abolition of nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama’s 2009 speech advocating nuclear disarmament in Prague.
The Biden administration then embraced a new term – “integrated deterrence”, which fused cyber, space and economic tools with nuclear forces to deter potential foes.
In recent years, however, North Korea’s sprint towards intercontinental ballistic missiles and the modernisation and expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal began testing the faith of US allies.
Trump has now turbo‑charged those doubts. He has mused that his “strategic reset” ties protection to payment. If NATO’s Article 5 (which obliges members to come to each other’s defence) is “conditional” on US allies paying their fair share, why would Asia be different?
Reports the White House has weighed a resumption of underground nuclear tests – and, under the Biden administration, even a more extensive arsenal – have rattled non‑proliferation diplomats.
A Politico analysis bluntly warns that sustaining global “extended deterrence” in two parts of the world (Europe and Asia) may be beyond Trump’s patience — or pocketbook.
A regional nuclear arms race
Allies are taking note. Last month, an Institute for Strategic Studies survey found officials in Europe and Asia openly questioning whether an American president would risk San Francisco to save Seoul.
In South Korea, public backing for a bomb now tops 70%.
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is, for the first time since 1945, considering a “nuclear sharing” arrangement with the US. Some former defence officials have even called for a debate on nuclear weapons themselves.
Taiwan’s legislators — long muzzled on the subject — whisper about a “porcupine” deterrent based on asymmetrical warfare and a modest nuclear capability.
If one domino tips, several could follow. A South Korean nuclear weapon program would almost certainly spur Japan to act. That, in turn, would harden China’s strategic outlook, inviting a regional arms race and shredding the fragile Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty.
The respected international relations journal Foreign Policy has already dubbed Trump’s approach “a nuclear Pandora’s box.”
The danger is not just about more warheads, but also the shorter decision times to use them.
Three or four nuclear actors crammed into the world’s busiest sea lanes — with hypersonic missiles and AI‑driven, early‑warning systems — create hair‑trigger instability. One misread radar blip over the East China Sea could end in catastrophe.
What does this mean for Australia?
Australia, too, has long relied on the US umbrella without demanding an explicit nuclear clause in the ANZUS treaty.
The AUKUS submarine pact with the US and UK deepens technological knowledge sharing, but does not deliver an Australian bomb. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insists the deal is about “deterrence, not offence,” yet the debate over funding nuclear-powered submarines exposes how tightly Australian strategy is lashed to American political will.
A regional cascade of nuclear proliferation would confront Australia with agonising choices. Should it cling to the shrinking US umbrella, invest in a missile defence shield, or contemplate its own nuclear deterrent? Any such move towards its own weapon would collide with decades of proud non‑proliferation diplomacy and risk alienating Southeast Asian neighbours.
More likely, Canberra will double down on alliance management — lobbying Washington to clarify its commitments, urging Seoul and Tokyo to stay the non‑nuclear course, and expanding regional defence exercises that make American resolve visible.
In a neighbourhood bristling with new warheads, middle powers that remain non‑nuclear will need thicker conventional shields and sharper diplomatic tools.
This means hardening Australia’s northern bases against a potential attack, accelerating its long‑range strike programs, and funding diplomatic initiatives that keep the Non-Proliferation Treaty alive.
The Trump administration’s transactional posture risks broadcasting a deficit of will precisely when East Asian security hangs in the balance. If Washington allows confidence in extended deterrence to erode, history will not stand still; it will split the atom again, this time in Seoul, Tokyo or beyond.
Australia has every incentive to prod its great power ally back toward strategic steadiness. The alternative is a region where the umbrellas proliferate — and, sooner or later, fail.
Ian Langford is affiliated with the University of New South Wales.
Funding for New Zealand’s Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) is set to be reduced by almost $36 million in Budget 2025.
This follows a cut of nearly $26 million in the 2024 budget.
As part of these budgetary savings, the Tauola Business Fund will be closed. But, $6.3 million a year will remain to support Pacific economic and business development through the Pacific Business Trust and Pacific Business Village.
The Budget cuts also affect the Tupu Aotearoa programme, which supports Pacific people in finding employment and training, alongside the Ministry of Social Development’s employment initiatives.
While $5.25 million a year will still fund the programme, a total of $22 million a year has been cut over the last four years.
The ministry will save almost $1 million by returning funding allocated for the Dawn Raids reconciliation programme from 2027/28 onwards.
There are two years of limited funding left to complete the ministry Dawn Raids programmes, which support the Crown’s reconciliation efforts.
Funding for Pasifika Wardens Despite these reductions, a new initiative providing funding for Pasifika Wardens will introduce $1 million of new spending over the next four years.
The initiative will improve services to Pacific communities through capacity building, volunteer training, transportation, and enhanced administrative support.
Funding for the National Fale Malae has ceased, as only $2.7 million of the allocated $10 million has been spent since funding was granted in Budget 2020.
The remaining $6.6 million will be reprioritised over the next two years to address other priorities within the Arts, Culture and Heritage portfolio, including the National Music Centre.
Foreign Affairs funding for the International Development Cooperation (IDC) projects, particularly focussed on the Pacific, is also affected. The IDC received an $800 million commitment in 2021 from the Labour government.
The funding was time-limited, leading to a $200 million annual fiscal cliff starting in January 2026.
Budget 2025 aims to mitigate this impact by providing ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year to cover half of the shortfall. An additional $5 million will address a $10 million annual shortfall in departmental funding.
Support for IDC projects The new funding will support IDC projects, emphasising the Pacific region without being exclusively aimed at climate finance objectives. Overall, $367.5 million will be allocated to the IDC over four years.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Budget addressed a prominent fiscal cliff, especially concerning climate finance.
“The Budget addresses this, at least in part, through ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year, focused on the Pacific,” she said in her Budget speech.
“Members will not be surprised to know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made a case for more funding, and this will be looked at in future Budgets.”
More funding has been allocated for new homework and tutoring services for learners in Years nine and 10 at schools with at least 50 percent Pacific students to meet the requirements for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).
About 50 schools across New Zealand are expected to benefit from the initiative, which will receive nearly $7 million over the next four years, having been reprioritised from funding for the Pacific Education Programme.
As a result, funding will be stopped for three programmes aimed at supporting Tu’u Mālohi, Pacific Reading Together and Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities.
Republished from Pacific Media Network News with permission.
Air New Zealand has announced it plans to resume its Auckland-Nouméa flights from November, almost one and a half years after deadly civil unrest broke out in the French Pacific territory.
“Air New Zealand is resuming its Auckland-Nouméa service starting 1 November 2025. Initially, flights will operate once a week on a Saturday. This follows the New Zealand Government’s decision to update its safe travel advisory level for New Caledonia”, the company stated in its latest update yesterday.
“The resumption of services reflects our commitment to reconnecting New Zealand and New Caledonia, ensuring that travel is safe and reliable for our customers. We will continue to monitor this route closely.
“Passengers are encouraged to check the latest travel advisories and Air New Zealand’s official channels for updates on flight schedules”, said Air New Zealand general manager short haul Lucy Hall.
In its updated advisory regarding New Caledonia, the New Zealand government still recommends “Exercise increased caution” (Level 2 of 4).
It said this was “due to the ongoing risk of civil unrest”.
In some specific areas (the Loyalty Islands, the Isle of Pines (Iles de Pins), and inland of the coastal strip between Mont Dore and Koné), it is still recommended to “avoid non-essential travel (Level 3 of 4).”
Warning over ‘civil unrest’ The advisory also recalls that “there was a prolonged period of civil unrest in New Caledonia in 2024. Political tensions and civil unrest may increase at short notice”.
“Avoid all demonstrations, protests, and rallies as they have the potential to turn violent with little warning”.
Air New Zealand ceased flights between Auckland and the French territory’s capital, Nouméa on 15 June 2024, at the height of violent civil unrest.
Since then, it has maintained its no-show for the French Pacific territory, one of its closest neighbours.
Air New Zealand’s general manager international Jeremy O’Brien said at the time this was due to “pockets of unrest” remaining in New Caledonia and “safety is priority”.
New Caledonia’s international carrier Air Calédonie International (Aircalin) is also operating two weekly flights to Auckland from the Nouméa-La Tontouta international airport.
The riots that broke out on 13 May 2024 resulted in 14 deaths and more than 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.1 billion) in damages, bringing New Caledonia’s economy to its knees, with thousands of businesses and jobs destroyed.
Tourism from its main regional source markets, namely Australia and New Zealand, also came to a standstill.
Specifically regarding New Zealand, local statistics show that between the first quarters of 2024 and 2025, visitor numbers collapsed by 90 percent (from 1731 to 186).
New Caledonia’s tourism stakeholders have welcomed the resumption of the service to and from New Zealand, saying this will allow the industry to relaunch targeted promotional campaigns in the New Zealand market.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Oscar Jenkins, a 33-year-old former teacher from Melbourne, was one of many foreigners who responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call in 2022 for volunteers to join Ukraine’s armed forces to help repel Russia’s invasion.
In early 2024, Jenkins joined Ukraine’s International Legion of Territorial Defence, which has attracted some 20,000 fighters from 50 countries since the war began. He had no previous military experience, but this wasn’t a requirement to join.
In December, Jenkins was captured by Russian forces in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and accused of serving as a “mercenary” in Ukraine’s 66th Mechanised Brigade’s 402nd Rifle Battalion. He was tried in a Russian court and sentenced on May 16 to 13 years imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony.
When a foreigner volunteers to fight in a war, their legal status under international law can be complicated.
Are they a soldier with the full authorisation of one of the warring parties to engage in hostilities? Or are they an illegal mercenary?
And what happens if they are captured?
Why legal status matters
The answers to these questions have very real importance to the thousands of foreigners who have joined Ukraine’s International Legion since 2022.
Russian authorities have classified all of Ukraine’s foreigner fighters as “mercenaries”. They’ve used this label to deny foreign fighters the status of “prisoner of war” (POW), with the requisite protections that come along with that under international humanitarian law.
While foreigners are permitted under international law to enlist in the armed forces of a state for political or moral reasons, mercenaries have historically been outlawed due to their sole motivation being financial gain.
International humanitarian law (the rules that govern war) define mercenaries as individuals who are not nationals or residents of a state engaged in war and are recruited to fight outside that state’s official armed forces.
They are motivated solely by private gain (like money or promises of reward), often well in excess of what the traditional armed forces are paid. Mercenaries are essentially professional soldiers who sell their services to a state without any real ties to that country.
Once a fighter is classified as a “mercenary”, they lose all the legal protections that are traditionally afforded lawful combatants.
This includes prisoner of war status if they are captured and immunity from prosecution for fighting in a conflict. Prisoners of war are also entitled to humane treatment and access to food and medical care. And they cannot be subjected to sham trials or torture.
According to my research, many of the foreign nationals who joined the International Legion were motivated by a desire to defend Ukraine against Russia’s aggression. They were sworn into Ukraine’s armed forces and paid the same as a Ukrainian soldier of equal rank.
Once enlisted in the armed forces, they were immediately exempt from “mercenary” status, irrespective of their motivation for joining.
As such, these foreign fighters should be entitled to the full range of protections guaranteed to members of Ukraine’s armed forces under the Geneva Conventions.
Labelling lawful foreign members of the Ukrainian armed forces as “mercenaries”, and denying them their protections, is an abuse of international law.
How can Australia protect its nationals?
If an Australian enlists in Ukraine’s armed forces and is captured by Russian forces, there is a limited toolkit the Australian government can use to help him or her. However, it is not powerless.
Through its embassy in Moscow, Australia can request access to detainees to assess their welfare while in prison. Russia can, however, decline this access. Details of a detainee’s capture may also be withheld.
Australia can also apply diplomatic pressure to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and their full POW rights.
This can be done by working with international bodies, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or organisations like the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), which can request access to detainees.
It appears the government is already doing some of these things. According to Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the government has been working with Ukraine and the ICRC to advocate for Jenkins’ welfare and release, and providing consular support to Jenkins’ family.
Australia also has an obligation to warn its citizens they will likely face severe consequences if they travel to Ukraine to fight and are captured by Russian forces, given Russia’s misuse of the “mercenary” label.
Through back-channel negotiations, Australia could also push Ukraine or its allies to include Australians being held by Russia in future prisoner swaps.
In January of this year, Ukraine and Russia carried out such an exchange of 470 prisoners from both nations. And in talks last week in Turkey, both sides agreed to release another 1,000 prisoners on each side.
Such exchanges have involved foreign fighters in the past. In 2022, 10 foreign citizens were included in a prisoner swap, including five Britons, two Americans, a Croatian, a Swede and a Moroccan. Several of them had been convicted of being mercenaries and sentenced to death after a Russian sham trial.
There is no guarantee Jenkins would qualify for such an exchange, however, if Russia continues to classify him as a mercenary.
Shannon Bosch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
What if we could design a machine that could read your emotions and intentions, write thoughtful, empathetic, perfectly timed responses — and seemingly know exactly what you need to hear? A machine so seductive, you wouldn’t even realise it’s artificial. What if we already have?
In a comprehensive meta-analysis, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show that the latest generation of large language model-powered chatbots match and exceed most humans in their ability to communicate. A growing body of research shows these systems now reliably pass the Turing test, fooling humans into thinking they are interacting with another human.
None of us was expecting the arrival of super communicators. Science fiction taught us that artificial intelligence (AI) would be highly rational and all-knowing, but lack humanity.
We call these systems “anthropomorphic agents”. Traditionally, anthropomorphism refers to ascribing human traits to non-human entities. However, LLMs genuinely display highly human-like qualities, so calls to avoid anthropomorphising LLMs will fall flat.
This is a landmark moment: when you cannot tell the difference between talking to a human or an AI chatbot online.
On the internet, nobody knows you’re an AI
What does this mean? On the one hand, LLMs promise to make complex information more widely accessible via chat interfaces, tailoring messages to individual comprehension levels. This has applications across many domains, such as legal services or public health. In education, the roleplay abilities can be used to create Socratic tutors that ask personalised questions and help students learn.
At the same time, these systems are seductive. Millions of users already interact with AI companion apps daily. Much has been said about the negative effects of companion apps, but anthropomorphic seduction comes with far wider implications.
Users are ready to trust AI chatbots so much that they disclose highly personal information. Pair this with the bots’ highly persuasive qualities, and genuine concerns emerge.
Recent research by AI company Anthropic further shows that its Claude 3 chatbot was at its most persuasive when allowed to fabricate information and engage in deception. Given AI chatbots have no moral inhibitions, they are poised to be much better at deception than humans.
This opens the door to manipulation at scale, to spread disinformation, or create highly effective sales tactics. What could be more effective than a trusted companion casually recommending a product in conversation? ChatGPT has already begun to provide product recommendations in response to user questions. It’s only a short step to subtly weaving product recommendations into conversations – without you ever asking.
What can be done?
It is easy to call for regulation, but harder to work out the details.
The first step is to raise awareness of these abilities. Regulation should prescribe disclosure – users need to always know that they interact with an AI, like the EU AI Act mandates. But this will not be enough, given the AI systems’ seductive qualities.
The second step must be to better understand anthropomorphic qualities. So far, LLM tests measure “intelligence” and knowledge recall, but none so far measures the degree of “human likeness”. With a test like this, AI companies could be required to disclose anthropomorphic abilities with a rating system, and legislators could determine acceptable risk levels for certain contexts and age groups.
The cautionary tale of social media, which was largely unregulated until much harm had been done, suggests there is some urgency. If governments take a hands-off approach, AI is likely to amplify existing problems with spreading of mis- and disinformation, or the loneliness epidemic. In fact, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has already signalled that he would like to fill the void of real human contact with “AI friends”.
Relying on AI companies to refrain from further humanising their systems seems ill-advised. All developments point in the opposite direction. OpenAI is working on making their systems more engaging and personable, with the ability to give your version of ChatGPT a specific “personality”. ChatGPT has generally become more chatty, often asking followup questions to keep the conversation going, and its voice mode adds even more seductive appeal.
Much good can be done with anthropomorphic agents. Their persuasive abilities can be used for ill causes and for good ones, from fighting conspiracy theories to enticing users into donating and other prosocial behaviours.
Yet we need a comprehensive agenda across the spectrum of design and development, deployment and use, and policy and regulation of conversational agents. When AI can inherently push our buttons, we shouldn’t let it change our systems.
Jevin West receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and others. The full list of funders and affiliated organizations can be found here: https://jevinwest.org/cv.html
Kai Riemer and Sandra Peter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The China Coast Guard (CCG) on Thursday slammed the Philippines’ illegal activities around China’s Zhubi Jiao and Tiexian Jiao, calling such acts a violation of China’s territorial sovereignty, and urging the Philippines to cease such infringements immediately.
Without approval from the Chinese government, two Philippine official ships illegally entered waters off China’s Zhubi Jiao and Tiexian Jiao on Wednesday, with some personnel unlawfully landing on Tiexian Jiao, according to Liu Dejun, the CCG spokesperson.
CCG enforcement personnel have taken measures against the ships, landing on the reef to deal with the situation in a professional, standard, reasonable and legal manner, Liu said.
However, one of the Philippine ships, ignoring multiple serious warnings from the Chinese side, dangerously approached a CCG ship conducting its duties, causing a bump between the two vessels. The Philippine side is fully responsible for the incident, Liu said.
Liu stated that China holds indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Qundao and the adjacent waters, adding that the Philippines’ actions have severely infringed upon China’s territorial sovereignty, violated the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, and undermined peace and stability in the region.
“We urge the Philippine side to immediately cease such violations. The CCG will continue its law enforcement activities to legally safeguard China’s sovereignty and rights in waters under the country’s jurisdiction,” Liu said.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The Ultimate Fighting Championship is coming back to the Chinese mainland by staging a Fight Night event, its first live showpiece since the pandemic, in Shanghai on Aug 23, following a sold-out event in Macao in November.
The Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts promotion announced the event on Thursday in Shanghai at a news conference, where all of its top-ranked Chinese fighters, including reigning women’s strawweight belt holder Zhang Weili and men’s bantamweight contender Song Yadong, celebrated the long-awaited return.
The roster on the Fight Night card has not been confirmed yet, but Zhang, the first Chinese athlete to win a world title under the organization, said she cannot wait to get involved in any possible roles.
Zhang Weili (R) of China in action against Brazilian Amanda Lemos at UFC 292 in Boston, Massachusetts, August 19, 2023. (UFC/Handout via Xinhua)
“You will probably see me cheering them on from the sideline, or commenting, or promoting the event as an ambassador. I will for sure be there,” said Zhang, who beat Brazilian wrestler Jessica Andrade to claim the strawweight belt in UFC’s third and last event in the mainland in Shenzhen, Guangdong province in August 2019.
“To fight at home is always the most exciting experience, without having to get used to the jet lag, language barrier and different weather fighting overseas. The home fans’ vocal support has been nothing but a huge source of energy for every athlete,” Zhang recalled her experience of the home fight.
Shanghai also hosted the organization’s mainland debut in 2017, followed by a second Fight Night in Beijing in 2018. The Macao Special Administrative Region, meanwhile, has also played host to UFC events four times since 2012.
To further help grow the sport’s profile in the birthplace of ancient martial arts, the UFC opened its second, and largest, Performance Institute in Shanghai in 2019, and has helped an increasing list of not just MMA talents, but also national team athletes from across Olympic sports to improve their performances at the multi-functional elite-level training center as part of an agreement with the Chinese Olympic Committee.
The organization also launched its fourth consecutive edition of the “Road to UFC” talent development program on Thursday with promising MMA fighters from across Asia to vie for coveted professional contracts awarded for winners at the selection tournament.
A total number of six Chinese athletes have earned pro contracts with UFC by punching through the pathway since the first edition in 2022.
“Every country has its own style of martial arts and China is widely recognized of having the oldest and most respected traditions,” Kevin Chang, UFC’s senior vice-president and head of Asia, said at the launch of the Shanghai Fight Night.
“The UFC has quickly become a global phenomenon and China has quickly become the most important overseas market for the UFC. The goal, with the PI in Shanghai, was not only developing a new generation of mixed martial artists, but also raising the bar of the sport as a whole,” he said.
Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)
Make America Healthy Again
“This is a milestone. Never in American history has the federal government taken a position on public health like this. And because of President Trump’s leadership, it’s not just one cabinet secretary, it’s the entire government…” –Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Malthouse’s new production of The Birds is a thrillingly realised take on the 1952 short story by Daphne Du Maurier. Adapted by Louise Fox and directed by Matthew Lutton, this vivid realisation is a chilling treatise on fear and resilience in the face of an external threat.
Paula Arundell plays Tessa, a wife and mother whose family has recently undergone a seachange to a sleepy little coastal town. Tessa serves as both our narrator and key storyteller as the show unfolds, and Arundell embodies multiple other characters with precise vocal and physical shifts.
As the birds start to amass on the sleepy seaside hamlet, Tessa becomes increasingly concerned about their intentions. After a random avian attack on a neighbour and the terror of the persistent nocturnal window-tapping visitors who eventually invade Tessa’s daughter’s bedroom, it becomes clear to Tessa her concerns are justified.
At first, no one takes the threat of the birds as seriously as Tessa. They fail to recognise the sinister and particular interest the birds have in the human species. Her husband and neighbour dismiss Tessa’s concerns as a sort of paranoia.
But as the amount of birds begins to sharply increase, creating a shadow in the sky that blocks out the sun, Tessa becomes the galvanising force determined to protect her family from this imminent deadly attack.
A theatrical feat
Sound, light and text support the audience to imagine rich landscapes of domestic, natural and urban settings.
Kat Chan’s set is stripped back, with a raised area in the middle of the stage and a few set and prop items on long tables along the walls. With this deceptively simple design, we are transported to the seashore, the interior of a home and a neighbourhood park as we journey with Tessa over two or three days during this apocalyptic disaster.
Kat Chan’s set is deceptively simple. Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre
J. David Franzke’s sound design is a feat of theatrical audio engineering. Headphones immerse the audience within a binaural sonic landscape.
Every sound Arundell makes on stage is emphasised, interwoven with a cacophony of bird squawks, cries, songs and calls.
Microphones and speakers are all cleverly disguised as wooden bird boxes, adding a beautiful conceptual touch to the never-seen – but absolutely present – flocks of murderous birds.
Post-pandemic theatre
In the original story, the male protagonist strategises his defence against the birds using logic and reasoning, as a post-World War Two disability limits him physically.
Fox’s adaptation nods to this part of the original story by a subtle reference to Tessa’s husband’s mental health, and that he has been “let go” (or, as he interjects, “let down”) by his company.
It is clear Tessa must use her wits to protect her family, including her husband. She has no one she can rely on but herself.
As this story reaches a ghastly and violent climax, I was struck by the similarities to some of the experience of pandemic lockdowns, still so recent in our collective memory.
Creative responses that reflect and depict this time are only really just beginning to emerge on Australian stages.
Maybe it was the effect of wearing headphones while watching a live performance that catapulted me back to the isolated feeling of only connecting with others outside my home through the digital realm.
The Birds evokes the isolation felt during COVID lockdowns. Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre
Tessa barricades her frightened family in her house to fend off this pervasive and ever-present threat. She counts her food supplies and how long they might last, operates under a curfew controlled by the tides, and tunes into the radio to hear what the government has to say about the bird situation. I was taken immediately back to a time of daily COVID numbers and premier briefings, toilet paper rationing and social distancing.
The possibility of what The Birds represents is manifold, with ideas of climate disaster, genocide, war and terrorism all present in the storytelling and the richly evocative text.
The simple final image of a woman reclining on a chair, calmly reciting names of bird species as she smokes a cigarette and awaits the dread that will come in the night is a powerful symbol of quiet fortitude.
Perhaps in this post pandemic context, it is Tessa’s determination in the face of this catastrophe that might speak to us of resilience in the face of seemingly impossible disasters and how we must continue to adapt, fight and resist to survive.
The Birds is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until June 7.
Sarah Austin 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.
With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the United States has signalled a return to aggressive tariff policies, upending economic forecasts around the world.
This leaves central banks with a tricky dilemma: how to respond when inflation and global growth are being shaped by political decisions rather than economic fundamentals?
Tariffs lift import prices and disrupt trade, which could lead to higher inflation. But they can also dampen consumer demand and undermine business confidence, which would slow economic growth.
This leaves central banks balancing two opposing forces – do they raise interest rates to control inflation, or cut interest rates to support growth?
Three big shocks in a row
This week, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor Michele Bullock addressed this challenge in a press conference after cutting interest rates for the second time this year.
She described the current period as one of “shifting and unusual uncertainty”.
Central banks, she noted, have faced three major shocks in succession: the global financial crisis, the COVID pandemic, and now the fallout from Trump’s trade policies.
Each, she said, is different – this latest one being political in nature and harder to categorise. Bullock stressed the difficulty of judging whether such shocks are supply-driven or demand-driven, or both, and emphasised the need to prepare for a range of outcomes.
So, the Reserve Bank took the unusual step of outlining three alternative global scenarios – trade war, trade peace, and a central baseline. Each one has distinct implications for Australian monetary policy.
It’s a clear example of how central banks can remain flexible and forward-looking in a world where the next shock may look nothing like the last.
Looking at three global scenarios
1. Trade war (escalation)
In this scenario laid out in the Reserve Bank’s quarterly statement on monetary policy, the US imposes sweeping new tariffs. That prompts retaliation and a slowdown in global trade. Supply chains are hit and business confidence falls.
Australia would feel the consequences quickly: weaker export demand, rising import prices, and a difficult mix of slower growth and temporary inflation. Here, the Reserve Bank would likely look past short-term price increases and focus on deteriorating demand. A rate cut would become more likely, despite inflation being above target in the short run.
2. Trade peace (de-escalation)
If the US backs away from new tariffs and tensions ease, global confidence improves and trade stabilises. Australia benefits from stronger global demand, a rebound in commodity exports and rising investment.
In this setting, inflation rises gradually due to higher activity – not import price shocks. The Reserve Bank might hold rates steady, or even consider hiking rates if inflation pressures build. But this scenario also carries risk: if the recovery is faster than expected, interest rates may be left low for too long.
3. Baseline scenario
In the bank’s central case, trade tensions persist but do not escalate. Global growth slows moderately and firms adjust to ongoing strain in supply chains.
Australia sees subdued but stable economic growth. Inflation remains within the 2-3% target band in the near term, and the Reserve Bank would stay open to either raising or lowering interest rates, depending on how risks evolve.
Other central banks face similar choices
Australia’s central bank is not alone in navigating these challenges.
At the Bank of England, the decision to cut rates in May showed a divided Monetary Policy Committee. While the majority supported a 0.25% cut, two members – including trade expert Swati Dhingra – called for a larger 0.5% move to better support growth. The split highlights the difficulty of gauging how aggressively to respond in an uncertain environment.
In the US, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has warned of the risks posed by Trump’s new tariffs. Speaking in April, Powell said the impact could be “larger than expected”, threatening both growth and inflation.
With trade policy largely out of the Fed’s hands, he noted, the central bank must still monitor developments on tariffs closely because of their potential to disrupt both employment and prices.
The road ahead
The re-emergence of US tariffs adds to the complexity facing central banks. As Bullock noted, this is not just another economic shock – it’s a politically driven one, which is harder to model and forecast.
The Reserve Bank’s response offers a practical framework: map out potential scenarios, weigh their implications and stand ready to move. In an uncertain world, monetary policy must be based not just on data, but on judgement, flexibility and contingency planning.
Stella Huangfu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
May 22, 2025
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) joined six of their Senate colleagues in reintroducing the Connecticut River Watershed Partnership Act (CRWPA), which would formalize a partnership between federal, state, local and private entities to promote conservation, restoration, education and recreation efforts in the Watershed and establish a voluntary grant program to facilitate these activities. This collaborative effort will benefit fish and wildlife habitats, protect drinking water sources, enhance flood resilience and help promote access to the Watershed’s public spaces, particularly for excluded and marginalized communities. U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (Mass.-02) leads a companion bill in the House of Representatives.
“The Connecticut River is one of our state’s greatest natural resources and a major economic driver for the communities it runs through. It’s also a really important part of a healthy Long Island Sound ecosystem,” said Murphy. “This legislation would help make sure organizations working on the ground have the support they need from federal, state, and local government to keep the watershed healthy and thriving for years to come.”
“The Connecticut River is a cherished treasure in our state. This legislation bolsters conservation efforts, protects fish and wildlife, supplies clean drinking water, and enhances recreation so that many generations of Connecticut residents can enjoy this natural resource. I’m proud to join my New England colleagues in supporting this initiative,” said Blumenthal.
The Connecticut River, New England’s longest river, drains a 7.2-million-acre watershed across five New England states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. The Watershed is home to 396 communities and provides multiple environmental and economic benefits to diverse stakeholders and industries, including fisheries, farming, hunting, recreation, boating and tourism. The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge encompasses the entire Watershed and is the only refuge of its kind in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Specifically, the CRWPA would:
Require the Secretary of Interior to establish a non-regulatory Watershed Partnership Program intended to identify, prioritize and implement restoration and protection activities within the Watershed in consultation with federal, state, local and non-profit stakeholders;
Create a grant and technical assistance program for state and local governments; tribal organizations; nonprofit organizations; institutions of higher education; and other eligible entities for activities in the Watershed;
Implement a 75% Federal cost share for the grant program, except where the Secretary determines a larger cost share is appropriate; and
Ensure other activities conducted by the Secretary in the Watershed would supplement, not supplant activities carried out by the partnership program.
The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of more than 50 public and private organizations throughout New England, including the Connecticut River Watershed Partnership. U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) also cosponsored the legislation.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
May 22, 2025
[embedded content]
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Thursday led a press conference with U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and U.S. Representative Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.), Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and End Citizens United to call out the blatant corruption behind President Trump’s meme coin dinner — a secretive, high-dollar event where anonymous crypto investors are buying direct access to Trump. The Members demanded full transparency: who’s attending, how much they paid, and what kind of influence they’re expecting in return for the millions of dollars they put in Trump’s meme coin. With no press, no disclosure, and crypto wallets tied to foreign actors, this dinner isn’t just unethical — it’s a national security risk. It’s pay-to-play politics on steroids, and Trump is cashing in. The dinner is scheduled for tonight at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia.
“We’re here today to call on the President and the people who serve him to do something really simple: release the names of the people who are going to be there,” said Murphy. “Even if you release the names, it’s still corrupt. But at least let us see who’s going to be there. At least let the American people know who has bought access to the President. Release the names. If there’s nothing wrong, if you think that this is all above board, then what are you hiding?”
“Americans sent us to Congress to unrig the economy — not to help the President turn the White House into a crypto cash machine with private dinners for his top meme coin buyers or legislation that supercharges his stablecoin profits,” said Banking Committee Ranking Member Warren. “The GENIUS Act should be written to prohibit the president and his family from profiting—period.”
“President Trump has put a ‘for sale’ sign on the White House lawn with his cryptocurrency schemes,” said Merkley. “Congress needs to act fast to stop the massive corruption and national security threat that is Trump selling access and influence to the highest bidders. My End Crypto Corruption Act not only cracks down on this corruption but also prevents other federal officials, like Members of Congress, from betraying our ‘We The People’ government.”
“Donald Trump is selling access. He is selling out America, he is selling it to a foreign power, and he is putting our national security at risk. Trump is becoming beholden to foreign powers—the Emirates that provided $2 billion to World Liberty Financial, the Qataris that have provided him with a plane, and the unknown foreign actors that have invested in his meme coin operation. It’s not just about corruption—it is about corruption that endangers our national security by putting the president in a compromised position in relation to foreign powers,” said Blumenthal. “My hope is that the Trump Administration will give us the list of individuals attending tonight’s dinner as the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation has asked them to provide.”
“I was not invited to dine with Donald Trump today. I’m not disappointed. But you know who should be disappointed? The 746,000 people (probably many of them Americans) who bought small amounts of that Trump coin – maybe some of them bought a little bit more – who didn’t get invited. When I introduced the MEME Act in the House it was because, to borrow from Richard Nixon, those 764,000 Americans needed to know that their president was a crook. And hopefully, we’re going to find some Republicans who have the courage and the spine to say this is corruption regardless of which party is committing it,” said Liccardo.
“America should not be for sale. With tonight’s prize dinner, our President is using his private golf course to cater to some of the world’s richest people, instead of working on behalf of working families and our country. He claims to be ‘America first,’ but really, he’s ‘Donald Trump first.’ Between his outrageous meme coin grift, his Tesla car show on the White House lawn, the jumbo jet gift from Qatar and his numerous candlelit dinners for tech bros and foreign billionaires, this President is the definition of corruption and personal profit over regular people,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen.
“The President’s corrupt dinner is yet another alarming example of foreign interests opening their wallets to him. By turning the American presidency into a money-making venture, Trump is inviting an unprecedented level of corruption—and putting our national security at risk. End Citizens United proudly stands with Senator Murphy and the other lawmakers who spoke out today to demand transparency and accountability,” said Justin Unga, Vice President of Public Affairs, End Citizens United.
Earlier this month, Murphy introduced the Modern Emoluments and Malfeasance Enforcement (MEME) Act, legislation to prevent corrupt federal officials from using their position to profit off digital assets such as meme coins. Rep. Liccardo introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
On 30 April 2025, managers from the 51 UNESCO World Heritage marine sites convened online with experts from UNESCO to review the results of UNESCO’s pioneering environmental DNA (eDNA) expeditions initiative and to exchange first-hand experiences involving citizen scientists in this world-first effort.
UNESCO eDNA expeditions is the first global use case for detecting ocean biodiversity with citizen-science using shared eDNA collection approaches. Over three years, more than 250 volunteers, some as young as 6 years old, collected eDNA samples at 21 UNESCO World Heritage marine sites spread across 19 countries. This effort empowered local schoolchildren and communities to contribute to marine biodiversity research and understand the impacts of climate change on their local World Heritage marine site.
The goal of the online meeting was to share lessons learned and firsthand insights with UNESCO World Heritage marine site managers – both from sites that participated in the initiative and those that did not – on how eDNA, combined with citizen science, can enhance marine biodiversity monitoring in protected areas, especially in the face of climate change threats to the ocean.
The scientific coordinator of the initiative, based in the International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) office in charge of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)’s Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS), presented an overview of the eDNA expeditions initiative. The presentation highlighted global results from the 19 participating countries and outlined future plans to support continued eDNA sampling and citizen science engagement at UNESCO World Heritage marine sites. Published in December 2024, the global results revealed the identification of more than 4,400 marine species, including several species of sharks and rays, marine mammal species, and turtle species. Among these, 120 are listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. Remarkably, the eDNA campaign detected 10–20% of the expected local marine fauna at each sampling site—an outcome that, using traditional survey methods, would have required prolonged effort and substantial financial resources.
Another major outcome of the programme was a parallel climate impact analysis, which assessed the thermal limits of the detected species using projected future ocean temperature scenarios. The findings indicated that in some tropical regions, up to 100% of species may be affected, highlighting the urgent need for adaptive management in response to increasing thermal stress on marine life.
Managers from UNESCO World Heritage marine sites shared their experiences leading the local eDNA sampling campaigns. A representative from the Everglades National Park World Heritage site (United States of America) highlighted the value of eDNA as a complementary tool to traditional methods for monitoring species presence within the site. The UNESCO-supported eDNA sampling campaign engaged local high school students in hands-on sampling activities, bridging classroom learning with real-world conservation efforts. Parents joined in as well, further strengthening community involvement. Currently, eDNA is used in the park to monitor overall biodiversity, including detecting invasive species like Burmese pythons.
Meanwhile, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage site (South Africa) shared how the eDNA campaign marked a first for both the site and local schools. High school students and teachers were trained in the techniques of eDNA sampling, with a strong emphasis on safety and following precise protocols. The campaign introduced learners to marine science and emphasized the importance of accuracy in data collection. As some key species were not detected, the campaign uncovered important data gaps and reinforced the importance of ongoing research and enhanced collaboration between marine protected area managers and the scientific community.
The UNESCO World Heritage List comprises 51 marine sites across 37 countries. Due to their status as the world’s flagship marine protected areas, UNESCO World Heritage marine sites are uniquely positioned to drive change and innovation, help set global standards in conservation excellence, and serve as beacons of hope in a changing ocean.
