Cyclone Alfred has now been delayed, as the slow-moving system stalls in warm seas off southeast Queensland. Unfortunately, the expected slow pace of the cyclone will bring even more rain to affected communities.
This is because it will linger for longer over the same location, dumping more rain before it moves on. Alfred’s slowing means the huge waves triggered by the cyclone will last longer too, likely making coastal erosion and flooding worse.
Cyclone Alfred is unusual – the first cyclone in half a century to come this far south and make expected landfall.
When unusual disasters strike, people naturally want to know what role climate change played – a process known as “climate attribution”. Unfortunately, this process takes time if you want details on a specific event.
We can’t yet say if Alfred’s unusual path and slow speed are linked to climate change. But climate change is driving very clear trends which can load the dice for more intense cyclones arriving in subtropical regions. These include the warm waters which fuel cyclones spreading further south, and cyclones dumping more rain than they used to.
So, let’s unpick what’s driving Cyclone Alfred’s behaviour – including the potential role of climate change.
A Bureau of Meteorology update on Cyclone Alfred dated Thursday, March 6.
Not necessarily climate linked: Alfred’s southerly path
Many cyclones make it as far south as Brisbane – but they’re nearly all far out at sea. Weather patterns mean most cyclones heading south are diverted to the east, where remnants can hit New Zealand as large extratropical storms.
The fact that Alfred is set to make landfall is very unusual. But we can’t yet definitively say this is due to climate change. Cyclones are steered by winds and weather patterns, and the Coral Sea’s complex weather makes cyclone paths here very hard to predict.
Alfred’s abrupt westward shift is due to a large region of high pressure to its south, which has pushed it directly towards heavily populated areas of southeast Queensland and northern New South Wales. These steering winds are not very strong, which is why Alfred is moving slowly.
In 2014, researchers showed cyclones are reaching their maximum intensity in areas further south in the southern hemisphere and north in the northern hemisphere than they used to. In 2021, researchers also found cyclones were reaching their maximum intensity closer to coasts, moving about 30 km closer per decade.
Climate link: Warmer seas
Cyclones typically need water temperatures of 26.5°C or more to form.
More than 90% of all extra heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions is stored in the seas. The oceans are the hottest on record, and records keep falling. But normal seasonal variability and shifting ocean currents are still at work too, and we can get unusually warm waters without climate change as a cause.
What we do know is that ocean temperatures around much of Australia have been unusually warm.
The northeastern Coral Sea, where Cyclone Alfred formed, experienced the fourth-hottest temperatures on record for February and the hottest on record for January.
In the Coral Sea, sea surface temperatures were the fourth highest on record in February 2025 and the highest on record in January 2025. This figure shows the trend over time for February. Bureau of Meteorology, CC BY-NC-ND
We also know Australia’s southern waters are warming up too.
The energy available to power tropical cyclones in subtropical regions has also increased in recent decades, due largely to rising ocean temperatures.
Average sea surface temperatures in central and southern Queensland on Thursday March 6th. Point Danger is on the Gold Coast. Bureau of Meteorology, CC BY-NC-ND
Climate link: Fewer cyclones but more likely to be intense
In the northern hemisphere, researchers have found a trend towards fewer cyclones over time. But of those which do form, a higher proportion are more intense.
It’s not fully clear if the same trend exists in the southern hemisphere, though we are seeing fewer cyclones forming over time.
This summer, eight tropical cyclones have formed in Australian waters. Six were classified as severe (category 3 and up). Historically, Australia has experienced a higher proportion of category 1 and 2 cyclones, which bring weaker wind speeds.
On average, we see about 11 cyclones form and 4-5 make landfall. There has been a downward trend in the number of cyclones forming in the Australian region in recent decades.
Fewer cyclones, but more likely to be intense: this figure shows the number of severe (Category 3 and up) and non-severe tropical cyclones (Category 1 and 2) since 1970/71. Bureau of Meteorology, CC BY-NC-ND
Climate link: Cyclones dumping more rain
The intensity of a cyclone refers to the speed of the wind and size of the wind-affected area.
But a cyclone’s rain field is also important. This refers to the area of heavy rain produced by storms when they’re at cyclone intensity and afterwards as they decay into tropical lows.
The rate of rainfall brought by cyclones in Australia isn’t necessarily increasing, but more cyclones are moving slowly, such as Alfred. This means more rain per cyclone, on average.
Rising ocean temperatures mean more water evaporates off the sea surface, meaning forming cyclones can absorb more moisture and dump more rain when it reaches land.
Why are cyclones slowing down? This is likely because air current circulation in the tropics has weakened. This has a clear link to climate change. Wind speeds have fallen 5 to 15% in the tropics, depending on where you are in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint the change clearly in our region, because the historic record of cyclone tracks isn’t very long.
For every degree (°C) of warming, rainfall intensity increases 7%. This is well established. But newer research is showing the rate may actually be double this or even higher, as the process of condensation releases heat which can trigger more rain.
Clear climate link: Bigger storm surges due to sea level rise
When a cyclone is about to make landfall, its intense winds push up a body of seawater ahead of it – the storm surge. In low lying areas, this can spill out and flood streets.
Because climate change is causing baseline sea levels to rise, storm surges can reach further inland. Sea-level rise will also make coastal erosion more destructive.
What should we take from this?
We can’t say definitively that climate change is behind Cyclone Alfred’s unusual track.
But factors such as rising sea levels, slower cyclones and warmer oceans are changing how cyclones behave and the damage they can do.
Over time, we can expect to see cyclones arriving in regions not historically affected – and carrying more rain when they arrive.
Liz Ritchie-Tyo receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the U.S. Office of Naval Research
Andrew Dowdy receives funding from University of Melbourne as well as supported through the Australian Research Council.
Hamish Ramsay receives funding from the Australian Climate Service.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ferdi Botha, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, The University of Melbourne
The HILDA Survey has been following the same people every year since 2001, which makes it possible to examine how the lives of Australians have changed across several aspects.
With data from 2001 to 2022, in this year’s report we looked at issues including income inequality, household chores, and the impact of natural disasters on Australian households.
Income inequality is the highest since 2001
Funded by the Australian government and managed by the Melbourne Institute, the survey is one of Australia’s most valuable social research tools.
HILDA examined the lives of 14,000 Australians in 2001 and has kept coming back each year to discover what has changed over the course of their lifetimes. It now covers 17,000 Australians, due to the expansion of participants’ families.
The survey shows that since COVID-era financial support ended, income inequality has risen substantially.
The increase in inequality stems from growth in higher incomes as compared to middle incomes, as well as a fall in the growth of lower incomes relative to middle incomes.
This means, relative to the median earner, Australians already earning a high income have seen the growth in their incomes rise. In contrast, Australians with low incomes have seen a decrease in the rate of growth in their incomes.
Between 2021 and 2022, 51.2% of respondents reported their real incomes have declined. This is up from about 41% in preceding years, suggesting a decrease in people’s purchasing power.
A technical measure called the Gini coefficient was 0.32 in 2022, the highest since we started the survey in 2001. The measure ranges from 0 to 1 and is an index that measures overall inequality, with higher scores suggesting greater income inequality.
Older Australians are getting richer too
Over the same period, household wealth has continued to grow.
However, there are large and growing age differences in the growth in household wealth. For young people aged between 18 and 34, net wealth rose by 72.4% to $238,942 over the 20 years to 2022.
But for older Australians aged 65 to 74, net household wealth jumped by 125% to about $1.26 million.
These age disparities in household wealth are partly explained by rates of home ownership, which are much higher among older Australians.
Home ownership is also the most important asset component in terms of total wealth. In 2022, almost 65% of households owned their home, and just over 20% of households held investment properties and holiday homes.
As a proportion of total wealth, the family home accounts for 44.5% and investment properties account for 14.9%.
Women are still doing most of the housework
Australian women still undertake the majority of housework, whereas men’s share of housework has remained constant over 20 years.
Women’s time spent on housework (such as cleaning, cooking, running errands) has fallen slightly from 23.8 hours per week in 2002 to 18.4 hours per week in 2022.
Men spent 12.8 hours per week on housework, precisely the same amount they did 20 years earlier. Thus, women are still doing close to 50% more housework than men are.
Men have increased the time they spend on caring responsibilities (such as playing with their children, helping with homework, caring for an elderly relative), from 5 hours per week in 2002 to 5.5 hours per week in 2022. The time women spend on care has risen from 10.1 hours per week to 10.7 hours per week over the same period. In 2022, women spent almost double the time on care duties than men.
Among couples, men are generally more satisfied than women are with the current division of unpaid work. Most women feel they do more than their fair share at home. Men tend to believe they share the housework and care fairly with their partner.
Surge in home damage due to weather-related disasters
Respondents were asked if a weather-related disaster (such as floods, bushfires or cyclone) had damaged or destroyed their home in the past 12 months. In 2022, 4.5% reported experiencing such an event.
This is a substantial increase from the year before, when only 1.3% of Australians reported weather-related home damage, and exceeding the previous peak of 2.7% in 2011.
There are also regional differences, closely corresponding with the timing of specific floods or bushfires in the states and territories. In 2022, 9% of New South Wales residents and 6% of Queensland reported home damage, consistent with major floods experienced in these regions in the months prior to the survey.
Among all Australians who in 2022 reported home damage due to a weather-related disaster, 62.5% were in NSW and 27.3% were in Queensland.
With the current cyclone Alfred forecast to hit Queensland and northern NSW on Friday, we expect a further significant increase in reported home damage.
Ferdi Botha is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.
US company Colossal Biosciences has announced the creation of a “woolly mouse” — a laboratory mouse with a series of genetic modifications that lead to a woolly coat. The company claims this is the first step toward “de-extincting” the woolly mammoth.
The successful genetic modification of a laboratory mouse is a testament to the progress science has made in understanding gene function, developmental biology and genome editing. But does a woolly mouse really teach us anything about the woolly mammoth?
What has been genetically modified?
Woolly mammoths were cold-adapted members of the elephant family, which disappeared from mainland Siberia at the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago. The last surviving population, on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, went extinct about 4,000 years ago.
The house mouse (Mus musculus) is a far more familiar creature, which most of us know as a kitchen pest. It is also one of the most studied organisms in biology and medical research. We know more about this laboratory mouse than perhaps any other mammal besides humans.
Colossal details its new research in a pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. According to the paper, the researchers disrupted the normal function of seven different genes in laboratory mice via gene editing.
By tinkering with different genes, researchers produced mice with different kinds of fur. Colossal Biosciences
Six of these genes were targeted because a large body of existing research on the mouse model had already demonstrated their roles in hair-related traits, such as coat colour, texture and thickness.
The modifications in a seventh gene — FABP2 — was based on evidence from the woolly mammoth genome. The gene is involved in the transport of fats in the body.
Woolly mammoths had a slightly shorter version of the gene, which the researchers believe may have contributed to its adaptation to life in cold climates. However, the “woolly mice” with the mammoth-style variant of FABP2 did not show significant differences in body mass compared to regular lab mice.
What would it mean to de-extinct a species?
This work shows the promise of targeted editing of genes of known function in mice. After further testing, this technology may have a future place in conservation efforts. But it’s a long way from holding promise for de-extinction.
Colossal Biosciences claims it is on track to produce a genetically modified “mammoth-like” elephant by 2028, but what makes a mammoth unique is more than skin-deep.
De-extinction would need to go beyond modifying an existing species to show superficial traits from an extinct relative. Many aspects of an extinct species’ biology remain unknown. A woolly coat is one thing. Recreating the entire suite of adaptations, including genetic, epigenetic and behavioural traits that allowed mammoths to thrive in ice age environments, is another.
Prehistoric drawings of an ibex (left) and a mammoth (right) found at Rouffignac cave in France. Cave Painter / Wikimedia
Unlike the thylacine (or Tasmanian tiger) — another species Colossal aims to resurrect — the mammoth has a close living relative in the modern Asian elephant. The closer connections between the genomes of these two species may make mammoth de-extinction more technically feasible than that of the thylacine.
But whether or not a woolly mouse brings us any closer to that prospect, this story forces us to consider some important ethical questions. Even if we could bring back the woolly mammoth, should we? Is the motivation behind this effort conservation, or entertainment? Is it ethical to bring a species back into an environment that may no longer sustain it?
Extinction is a colossal problem facing the world. And Colossal is the company that’s going to fix it.
It’s hard to argue with the first part of that. But focusing on bringing back extinct species distracts from a more urgent reality: species are going extinct right now, and we are not doing enough to save them.
We should first focus on promises to save surviving species, rather than promises to bring back the dead.
With more investment in threatened species monitoring, new pest control methods, and conservation genetic management, we can turn the tide of extinction and secure the future for species that remain.
There’s a long list of threatened species that are still alive now. With the right funding and conservation attention, we can do something to save them before it’s too late.
Emily Roycroft receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Programme, and the Australian Academy of Science.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.
Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.
Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?
Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.
Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.
Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.
Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.
Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.
Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.
Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.
One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.
The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.
Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.
They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.
The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.
To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:
Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.
It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.
We know what works – vaccines
The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.
The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.
relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.
Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.
“It’s really sore,” my (Josh’s) five-year-old daughter said, cradling her broken arm in the emergency department.
“But on a scale of zero to ten, how do you rate your pain?” asked the nurse.
My daughter’s tear-streaked face creased with confusion.
“What does ten mean?”
“Ten is the worst pain you can imagine.” She looked even more puzzled.
As both a parent and a pain scientist, I witnessed firsthand how our seemingly simple, well-intentioned pain rating systems can fall flat.
What are pain scales for?
The most common scale has been around for 50 years. It asks people to rate their pain from zero (no pain) to ten (typically “the worst pain imaginable”).
This focuses on just one aspect of pain – its intensity – to try and rapidly understand the patient’s whole experience.
How much does it hurt? Is it getting worse? Is treatment making it better?
Rating scales can be useful for tracking pain intensity over time. If pain goes from eight to four, that probably means you’re feeling better – even if someone else’s four is different to yours.
Consider my daughter’s dilemma. How can anyone imagine the worst possible pain? Does everyone imagine the same thing? Research suggests they don’t. Even kids think very individually about that word “pain”.
People typically – and understandably – anchor their pain ratings to their own life experiences.
This creates dramatic variation. For example, a patient who has never had a serious injury may be more willing to give high ratings than one who has previously had severe burns.
“No pain” can also be problematic. A patient whose pain has receded but who remains uncomfortable may feel stuck: there’s no number on the zero-to-ten scale that can capture their physical experience.
In reality, pain ratings are influenced by how much pain interferes with a person’s daily activities, how upsetting they find it, their mood, fatigue and how it compares to their usual pain.
Other factors also play a role, including a patient’s age, sex, cultural and language background, literacy and numeracy skills and neurodivergence.
For example, if a clinician and patient speak different languages, there may be extra challenges communicating about pain and care.
Still, we work with the tools available. There is evidence people do use the zero-to-ten pain scale to try and communicate much more than only pain’s “intensity”.
So when a patient says “it’s eleven out of ten”, this “impossible” rating is likely communicating more than severity.
They may be wondering, “Does she believe me? What number will get me help?” A lot of information is crammed into that single number. This patient is most likely saying, “This is serious – please help me.”
In everyday life, we use a range of other communication strategies. We might grimace, groan, move less or differently, use richly descriptive words or metaphors.
Collecting and evaluating this kind of complex and subjective information about pain may not always be feasible, as it is hard to standardise.
As a result, many pain scientists continue to rely heavily on rating scales because they are simple, efficient and have been shown to be reliable and valid in relatively controlled situations.
But clinicians can also use this other, more subjective information to build a fuller picture of the person’s pain.
Visual scales are one tool. For example, the “Faces Pain Scale-Revised” asks patients to choose a facial expression to communicate their pain. This can be particularly useful for children or people who aren’t comfortable with numeracy and literacy, either at all, or in the language used in the health-care setting.
A vertical “visual analogue scale” asks the person to mark their pain on a vertical line, a bit like imagining “filling up” with pain.
Modified visual scales are sometimes used to try to overcome communication challenges. Nenadmil/Shutterstock
Listen for the story behind the number, because the same number means different things to different people.
Use the rating as a launchpad for a more personalised conversation. Consider cultural and individual differences. Ask for descriptive words. Confirm your interpretation with the patient, to make sure you’re both on the same page.
Patients
To better describe pain, use the number scale, but add context.
Try describing the quality of your pain (burning? throbbing? stabbing?) and compare it to previous experiences.
Explain the impact the pain is having on you – both emotionally and how it affects your daily activities.
Paediatric health professionals are trained to use age-appropriate vocabulary, because children develop their understanding of numbers and pain differently as they grow.
A starting point
In reality, scales will never be perfect measures of pain. Let’s see them as conversation starters to help people communicate about a deeply personal experience.
That’s what my daughter did — she found her own way to describe her pain: “It feels like when I fell off the monkey bars, but in my arm instead of my knee, and it doesn’t get better when I stay still.”
From there, we moved towards effective pain treatment. Sometimes words work better than numbers.
Joshua Pate has received speaker fees for presentations on pain and physiotherapy. He receives royalties for children’s books.
Dale Langford has received honoraria and research support from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trials, Translations, Innovations, and Opportunities Network (ACTTION), a public-private partnership with the United States (US) Food & Drug Administration. She has also been supported by the US National Institutes of Health.
Tory Madden works for the University of Cape Town, where she directs the African Pain Research Initiative. She receives funding from the US National Institutes of Health. She is affiliated with the University of South Australia, KU Leuven, and the Train Pain Academy not-for-profit organisation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne
For the past three weeks the arts have been dominated by a recent decision made by the board of Creative Australia. On February 7 it was announced Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino had been chosen as the artistic team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale in 2026.
One week later, the board announced Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer be representing the country because their selection would cause “a prolonged and divisive debate”.
This about-turn represents a low point in the relationship between artists and their funding body, Creative Australia.
Creative Australia (known as the Australia Council until 2023) has historically endured many attacks from the public, the media and political parties. This past weekend, for example, The Weekend Australian published three different stories critiquing Creative Australia and its arts funding processes.
While the amount of money Creative Australia receives is minuscule in relation to overall government spending (in 2023–24 it received A$258 million), the arts themselves enjoy a profile much greater than their monetary value.
So how does Creative Australia operate? And what does this decision on Sabsabi mean for its relationship with artists?
What is the peer review system?
Funding decisions at Creative Australia are based on two key principles: peer review, and arm’s length funding.
Peer review means decisions on who is funded are made by artists and arts workers with a deep understanding of the artform at hand.
Arm’s length funding means that, while the government funds Creative Australia, artists are supported free from direct political intervention.
The Australia Council, established in 1975, was originally structured around several artform boards, made up of peers from each of the artform sectors. These peers were given the task of overseeing their artforms and making funding decisions. Peers were selected by the government, usually after nomination by the Australia Council, and served terms of between two to five years.
Membership of an artform board was seen as an honour as well as a duty by those selected: a way of influencing funding decisions, but also a way of giving back to the sector.
As a result of an internal review in 2012, the process of peer decision making changed dramatically. The Australia Council in 2013 removed the artform boards (with a couple of exceptions) and introduced an ad hoc peer system where individuals were asked to self-nominate if they wanted to be part of the selection process. Staff then chose individuals, from a large pool of peers, to sit on a panel for each funding round.
As a result of the 2013 reforms the relationship with the minister for the arts was also changed. Up till then, the minister only had the power to appoint the members of the Australia Council board and the members of the various artform boards. In 2013 the act was changed so the minister could also give policy direction to the Australia Council.
In 2019, another category of selector was introduced. Industry advisors advise on multi-year funded applications, with the final decision made by Creative Australia staff.
The changing make-up of decision makers
The membership of the Australia Council’s governing board was historically more politicised, but its members were also often leading figures in the field.
The chair position was usually a leading figure from the arts and cultural field, including writers Donald Horne, Rodney Hall and Hilary McPhee, and music specialist Margaret Seares.
In the 2000s this changed under the Howard government, with the re-framing of the arts as businesses. This led to the appointment of business-people onto the board, particularly as chairs. Chairs this century have included business leaders David Gonski, James Strong, Rupert Myer and now Robert Morgan.
This meant priorities other than artform quality were introduced into the overall decision making.
The Venice Biennale process
Australia has been participating in the Venice Biennale since 1954.
Until 2019 there was a commissioner responsible for the selection of the Australian artist. The role was occupied by notable individuals in the arts world, such as philanthropist and art collector Simon Mordant. Artists would be individually invited by the commissioner to be the Venice representative.
In 2019 the Australia Council took over the role, and the process changed to an application system where artists were assessed by a panel of experts, before the final representatives (such as Sabsabi and Dagostino for 2026) were selected from a shortlist of six.
While all of the details of what happened in the lead up to rescinding Sabsabi’s invitation are unknown, some facts have been laid out: The Australian published an article criticising his selection; Coalition arts spokesperson Claire Chandler asked about his selection in Question Time; and Arts Minister Tony Burke phoned Creative Australia CEO Adrian Collette.
That night, Collette and the board decided Sabsabi’s invitation would be rescinded.
Who gets a say in the arts?
It seems now the funding model that Australia has created for the arts may no longer be serving the artists. The board’s decision following Burke’s phone call to Collette calls into question the principles of peer review and arm’s length funding.
The structure and decision-making processes of Creative Australia should now be reviewed as a matter of urgency. The peer system works remarkably well if structured appropriately. At present it would seem it is not.
Artists deserve a body that defends their rights, so they are not sacrificed for political needs.
Jo Caust has previously received funding from the Australia Council. She is a member of NAVA and the Arts Industry Council(SA). She also worked at the Australia Council in the 1980s.
The Trump presidency is turning much of the world order on its head. Tne United States president is arm-twisting Ukraine, playing nice with Russia, and using protection as an economic and political weapon.
The Australian government is pessimistic about escaping American tariffs on aluminium and steel when a decision is announced next week. Meanwhile, the message from the US is clear: we need to boost defence spending.
To discuss Trump Mark 2 on the world stage and what that means for Australia, we’re joined by James Curran, professor of modern history at the University of Sydney.
Curran says,
One gets the sense that we are looking at the kind of tectonic plates of world politics shifting before our very eyes.
Trump is about might is right. He does have an expansionary view of American power in the western hemisphere if we are to judge him by his statements on the Panama Canal and Greenland. But I think more broadly, his interpretation of American power is to simply “get out of America’s way”.
In terms of economic implications, [it’s] a confirmation that we are looking at the permanence of protectionism in the United States. This administration, along with the Biden administration and the first Trump administration, have been putting a wrecking ball through the multilateral trading system and the WTO. And that is certainly a not a good thing for free trade and for countries like Australia.
Curran explains what America’s expectation that countries need to spend more on defence would mean for Australia,
This has been the great concern, if you like, over a number of years – that Australia has got defence on the cheap, that it’s put so much of its national wealth into the middle class and welfare and infrastructure and developing the nation that it’s been able to rely on the American blanket of protection while it pursues its prosperity.
So if [defence spending] is to rise to 3% [of GDP], then that’s going to mean, firstly, a concentration on what are the lower cost alternatives to defend this continent? And secondly, where will the trade offs come? What will be sacrificed from the national budget? And what political leader in this country will front the Australian people and squarely and honestly and earnestly have a conversation about these dramatic strategic circumstances and why greater sacrifice is required from Australians to enable a higher defence expenditure.
Is the Trump world the new normal, or will this be over when Trump eventually leaves the White House?
I’m a little bit sceptical about this idea that we grit our teeth and close our eyes and hope that the nightmare is over in four years time. There is a really big question mark over how America can snap back in terms of its institutional robustness. The pressure that the courts, the media and the Congress are under. Does this all just snap back in four years time? Do we really think that either a Republican or a Democrat successor to Trump will ride into Washington, down Pennsylvania Avenue in a glittering chariot of liberal internationalism? To say everyone shouldn’t worry because the liberal international order is back and it’s gleaming and it’s working.
I really think this is up to America’s allies, both in Europe and in East Asia, to continue to protect as many of those rules and those institutions that have worked so well for so many of us, as much as they possibly can.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Markela Panegyres and Jonathan Strauss in Sydney
The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.
While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.
It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.
The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.
The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.
Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.
Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.
Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.
Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.
Intensify repression The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.
By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.
It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.
As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.
UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.
In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.
By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.
The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.
Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.
Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.
Sweeping claims The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.
But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.
Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.
Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.
According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.
While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?
The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.
The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.
What these are is not defined.
Anti-racism challenge Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.
With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?
The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.
UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.
It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.
All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.
Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.
We will not be silenced on Palestine.
Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Opinion/Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Germany’s important election last week struggled to make the news cycle, even on Germany’s own Deutsche Welle(DW), Germany’s equivalent of Britain’s BBC. Especially (but not only) in the international media, most of the focus was on a single party (AFD, Alliance for Germany) that was never going to have the most votes and was (almost) never going to become part of the resulting government.
Germany is the world’s third largest national economy, and traditionally dominates the politics of the European Union; an important example of this dominance was the Eurozone financial crisis of the first-half of the 2010s; a crisis that was (unsatisfactorily) resolved, thanks to a problematic and controversial program of fiscal austerity.
At present, Germany, like New Zealand, is experiencing an economic recession. (Provisional annual economic growthwas -0.2% in 2024 and -0.3% in 2023.) The cause is similar, too, in both countries: the same ‘balance the Budget’ mentality that gave the world the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Election Result
The ‘winner’ of the German election was the CDU/CSU Alliance (see Wikipedia for a better presentation of the results), which works a bit like the Liberal/National Coalition in Australia. (The Christian Social Union functions in Bavaria much like Australia’s National Party functions in rural Queensland.) CDU/CSU (like National in New Zealand) comfortably prevailed with 28.5 percent of the vote, entitling that alliance to 33 percent of the seats in the Bundestag (Parliament).
The new Chancellor (equivalent to Prime Minister) will be Friedrich Merz; a 69-year-old version of our own Christopher Luxon, as far as I can tell. He is strongly anti-Putin and pro-Israel. He has come to power well and truly under the international media radar; and will be in a strong position to exert near-absolute power, given that he will always be able to turn to the AFD (who got more votes than the Social Democrats; 20.8%) for support in the Bundestag for any measure that is not palatable to Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats. In the new Parliament, the Greens and the Left merely make up the numbers.
Merz’s Christian Democrats will form a coalition government with the losing SPD (Social Democratic Party, like Labour in New Zealand) who came third with 16.4 percent of the vote; 19 percent of the seats. Together these two parties of the establishment centre hold 52% of the new parliament, despite having less than 45% of the vote. (The outgoing minority government was a centrist coalition of the SPD and the Greens; the election was held early because the ACT-like Liberal Party – the FPD, Free Democrats – withdrew from the coalition. The FPD vote shrunk from 11.4 percent in 2021 to just 4.3 percent of the vote this time.)
The result in Germany proved to be very much like that of the United Kingdom in 2024: a slide in support for the two major parties (‘the establishment centre’), a consolidation of power to the self-same establishment centre, and a shift of that establishment centre to the right. (See my chart in Germany’s stale (and still pale) political mainstream, Evening Report 27 February 2025, for a timeline of decline.) While both countries technically underwent a change of government, in both countries the establishment has entrenched its power, and in both countries the political assumptions of the power centre have shifted to the right.
Clearly this is problematic for democracy, because historically disastrous popular support for the ‘broad church’ parties of the establishment centre has coincided with increased power to those parties, as well as policy convergence between them. Further, based on legislative electoral requirements, neither Germany nor the United Kingdom (nor the United States for that matter) will have a new government until 2029. At a time when a week is a long time in international politics, 208 weeks is an eternity. World War Three, a distinct possibility, may be in its second or third year by then.
Voting System
Germany represents the prototype upon which New Zealand’s MMP voting system is based. There are some differences though, and some recent changes.
Germany calls its all-important ‘party vote’ the ‘second vote’, disguising its importance. It is possible that many German voters do not fully appreciate its significance. The electorate vote is called ‘first vote’, and winners (by a plurality, not necessarily a majority) are elected ‘directly’. The second (party) vote is understood as a top-up vote to ensure proportionality.
Party lists are regional in Germany. And ‘ethnic parties’ may get special privileges.
In one respect the German version is more proportional than the New Zealand version of MMP, in that it no longer allows overhang MPs. (However, the most recent result is not proportional in the important sense that two parties together with less than 45% of the vote have 52% of the seats.) In MMP, one can easily imagine an overhang situation being frequent if the ‘major’ parties, which win most electorates, only get between 16% and 29% of the party vote.
In 2013, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court decided that overhang seats were too big a threat to proportionality. So, they introduced ‘levelling seats’. In effect, it meant that if one party gets an overhang, then all parties get an overhang. The result was, in 2013, that a parliament that should have had 598 members (Deputies) ended up with 631, an effective overhang of 33. In 2017 that effective overhang grew to 111, and to 137 in 2021.
For 2025, they decided to abandon overhang representation altogether, by not guaranteeing direct election through the first vote. And they fixed the size of the Bundestag to 630 Deputies, up from a base-size of 598.
If the new German system was in place in New Zealand in 2023, then two of the Te Pati Māori electorate seats from 2023 would have been forfeit, going instead to second placed candidates; proportionality in 2023 entitled Te Pati Māori to four seats, not the six which they have. However, we should note that, if New Zealand was using the present German version of MMP, there would be no special Māori electorates, but the Māori Party would be exempt the five percent party threshold. Ethnic-privileged parties in Germany are incentivised to focus on the party vote, not the electorate vote. In Germany there is a Danish ethnic party (South Schleswig Voters’ Association) which is exempt the threshold. Its leader, Stefan Seidler, did not win his electorate. But his party got 0.15% of the nationwide vote, meaning it qualified for 0.15% of the 630 places in the Bundestag; one seat, for him.
New Zealand voters seem to have more tactical and strategic political nous than do German voters. Thus, it has been very rare for a party in New Zealand to miss out qualifying for Parliament because of getting between 4% and 5% of the party votes (noting that both countries operate a 5% disqualification threshold). In Germany, party-vote percentages just below 5% are not uncommon. In New Zealand, voters, conscious that they want to play a role in coalition-building, actively help parties near the threshold to get over the line. (Indeed, I voted New Zealand First in 2023, because I was 99.9% sure that the only post-election coalition options would be National/ACT or National/ACT/NZF; I favoured the three-party alternative, so I used my vote strategically to help block a National/ACT government.)
Indeed the latest German result was a bit like the latest New Zealand result, but with a party resembling New Zealand First (BSW) getting 4.972% of the vote, so getting no seats at all. BSW getting just a few more votes would have meant a substantial erosion of the two-party power result which eventuated. It is extremely difficult for new non-ethnic parties to get elected in Germany.
In 2025, two parties scored just under five percent of the vote. As well as the BSW, the (ACT-like) Free Democrats who had been part of the previous government, and who had indeed precipitated the early election, scored 4.3%. Indeed, fifteen percent of the votes were ‘wasted’ – that is, cast for ultimately unsuccessful parties. In New Zealand the wasted vote is typically around four percent. Indeed, this high wasted vote turns out to be a more serious challenge to proportionality in German than uncompensated overhang seats.
Both Germany and New Zealand have the contentious (in New Zealand) ‘electorate MP’ rule; the rule that’s misleadingly dubbed in New Zealand as the ‘coat-tail’ rule. (Misleading, because most MPs come in on the coat-tails of their party leadership, and always have.) In Germany the rule is stricter than in New Zealand. In order to avoid disqualification by getting less than 5% of the party vote, New Zealand requires that the party get one electorate MP. In Germany the rule (initially the same as New Zealand), since 1957 has been a requirement for three electorate MPs. In Germany in 2021, the Left Party got 4.87% of the vote and three electorate MPs; they just squeezed in, on both criteria!
Overall, United States’ Vice-President JD Vance’s pre-election comments about democracy in Germany were valid. German politics continues to exclude the non-establishment parties of both the right and the left, despite support for these parties having been increasing for a while, and now representing the majority of German voters.
Media Framing
German television electoral coverage, if DW is anything to go by, is superficial; indeed, is quite insensitive to the national and local dramas taking place. I watched the coverage live. In the hour before the Exit Poll results were announced, the discussion barely mentioned the potential dramas taking place, despite both the BSW and FDP parties pre-polling only just under the five percent threshold. The state of the economy was mentioned in a perfunctory way; clearly it was not a big issue for the political class on display.
At 6 o’clock exactly, the exit-poll results were read out, as if they were the election result. As indeed they turned out to be, more-or-less; the same as the pre-election polls. The subsequent uninterested attitude towards the actual counting of the votes was disappointing. There had been a bit of this in the 2024 UK election as well; as if the exit poll was the election result. In the UK case, Labour’s actual result (for the popular vote) was well under the exit poll result, while the Conservatives did significantly better than their exit poll tally; those facts, though, were for the nerds and psephologists.
In my observation, early votes and exit polls favour the parties supported by the political class; election day votes much less so. So, in New Zealand in 2023 it was initially looking like there would be a two-party coalition of the right. But, to the attentive, as the night wore on, the National Party percentage fell from 41% to 38%, meaning that NZF would have to be included in any resulting coalition.
I suspected something quite similar would happen in Germany, and I was only partially wrong. The exit poll results, and the subsequent counts, were presented to just one decimal place; indeed, the presentation of the numbers was very poor throughout. So, it was hard to see to what extent BSW was improving as the votes were counted.
In the exit poll, two parties – FPD and BSW – were shown as being on 4.7%, and the AFD was on 19.5%. So, the two 4.7% parties were largely written out of the subsequent discussion. We did see an early concession by the FPD, who – representing a segment of the political class – understood the polling dynamics rather well. And we did see the AFD’s Alice Weidel being asked if she was disappointed to get under 20%. Ms Weidel put on a brave face, but she did seem disappointed. When the votes were actually counted, her party got 20.8% exactly on Weidel’s prior expectations.
BSW was completely ignored. There was simply no interest in the possibility that they might reach the 5% threshold, even when the vote count had them upto 4.9%. In the end BSW reached 4.972%; so close! Out of sight, out of mind! In the official results the BSW were lumped with ‘Other Parties’. The DW election panel were too unaware to make any comments about the party itself, its philosophies, or how its possible success might influence the process of forming a coalition government. (Of particular importance was that, with just a few more votes, BSW might have given Eastern Germany a voice in a three-way coalition government.)
For DW, their perennial concern is the place of Germany within Europe and the World; they had little time to give the outside world a glimpse into the domestic lives and politics of ordinary Germans. And we heard nothing about the ‘ethnic vote’, the privileged Denmark Party notwithstanding. I suspect that many if not most of the recent immigrants who do much of the work in Germany either could not vote or did not vote. The election was about them, not for them; denizens, not citizens.
However, DW did invite on a gentleman who mildly focussed the attention of the discussants by suggesting that one of the priorities of the new Chancellor – Friedrich Merz – would be to acquire nuclear weapons! I don’t think the rest of the world had any prior insights into that; ordinary Germans were probably equally in the dark.
Who is Friedrich Merz? Who knows? It turns out that he dropped out of politics for a while, to play a leading role in BlackRock, the international acquisitions company which until recently owned New Zealand’s SolarZero (refer Update on SolarZero Liquidation by BlackRock, Scoop, 29 January 2025). Our media told us that the election was all about the “far-right” AFD Party; that is, the far non-establishment-right. We in New Zealand heard nothing about the far establishment-right; the shadowy man (or his party). Some now fear Merz will be an out-and-out warmonger. Even Al Jazeera, which can be relied upon to cover many stories about places New Zealand’s media barely touches (and in a bit more depth), had the portraits of Olaf Scholz and Alice Weidel on the screen, on 22 February, the day before the election, despite the certainty that Merz world become the new Chancellor.
In that vein, I heard a German woman interviewed in Christchurch, on RNZ on 25 February. She, disappointed with the election result, spent her whole edited four minutes railing about the AFD, as if the AFD had won. There was no useful commentary, by her or RNZ, of the actual result of Germany’s election.
Are we so shallow that we don’t care; that some of us with the loudest voices only want to rail against a non-establishment party, and to see the democratic support for alternative parties as being somehow anti-democratic?
East Germany
People of a certain age in New Zealand will remember the former East Germany; the DDR, German ‘Democratic’ Republic. Most people in Germany itself will have had knowledge of it, including the Berlin-based political staff of DW who were mostly in their thirties, forties and fifties. But the ongoing issues of Eastern Germany were barely in their mindframes.
In Eastern Germany – the former DDR – (especially outside of Berlin), support for the AFD was close to 40%, for BSW over 10%, and the Left much higher than in Western Germany. In the former East Berlin (which I visited in 1974), the Left seems to have been the most popular party. Support in the East for the establishment parties combined was between 25% and 30%, and with a lower turnout.
BSW, it turns out, is Left on economic policy and Right on social policy. And, in the German discourse, is categorised by the political class as ‘pro-Putin’. If BSW had got 5% of the vote, Merz could have tried to bring them into his government; or Merz might have turned to the Green Party instead of a ‘pro-Putin’ party. But I cannot see even the German Greens being able to govern as a junior partner to a belligerent establishment-right CDU-led government. BSW’s failure to get 5% of the vote may turn out to be one of the great ‘might-have-beens’ of Germany’s future history.
As JD Vance stated, this Eastern German situation poses a danger for democracy in Germany and in Europe. Eastern Germany is where the German state is at its most vulnerable. The majority of voters there have voted for ‘pro-Putin’ parties; and, significantly, parties prioritising the problems of economic failure over the big-politics of extranational power-plays.
The new German government, it would seem, is set to aggravate (or, at best, ignore) the problems of Germany’s ‘near-East’, while setting out to inflame the problems of Europe’s ‘far-East’.
The Debt Brake
This is Germany’s equivalent of Ruth Richardson’s 1994 ‘Fiscal Responsibility Act’ (now entrenched in New Zealand law and lore). This is the major single reason why New Zealand has had so many infrastructure problems this century, and why so many young men and families emigrated to Australia in the 1990s, with some of these emigrants coming back to New Zealand in recent years as ‘501s’.
The Merkel debt-brake is the self-inflicted single major reason why many European economies are in such a mess today; and Germany in particular. Germany is congenitally deeply committed to all kinds of financial austerity, with government financial austerity being the most ingrained. Rather than circulating as it should, money is concentrating. The debt-brake is “a German constitutional rule introduced [in 2009] during the Global Financial crisis to enforce budget discipline and reduce [public] debt loads in the country” (see Berlin Briefing, below).
Germany still has a parliamentary session under the old Parliament, before the new parliament convenes. Michaela Küfner (see Berlin Briefing, below) suggests the possibility that the old “lame duck” Parliament could remove the debt-brake from the German constitution, because she sees the make-up of the new more right-wing parliament as being less amenable to address this ‘elephant in the room’. Seems democratically dodgy to me, even talking about pushing dramatic constitutional legislation through a ‘lame duck’ parliament; like Robert Muldoon, pushing through a two-year parliamentary term for New Zealand in the week after the 1984 election!
(Two-year parliamentary terms are not unknown, by the way; the United States has a two-year term for its Congress. This is almost never mentioned when we discuss the parliamentary term in New Zealand. In the United States at present, there will be many people for whom the 2026 election cannot come fast enough; an opportunity to reign-in Donald Trump.)
Future German relations with the United States
On 27 February (28 Feb, New Zealand time) – before the fiasco in the White House on 28 February – I watched Berlin Briefing on DW. This programme is a regular panel discussion of the political editorship of Deutsche Welle.
The context here is that Friedrich Merz made an important speech the evening after the election; a speech that had the Berlin beltway – “people behind the scenes here in Berlin” – all agog. Merz said: “For me the absolute priority will be strengthening Germany so much so that we can achieve [defence] independence from the United States.”
The discussion proceeded as follows:
“How important is this anchoring in Nato of the idea of the United States as ‘The Great Protector’?” Nina Haase, DW political correspondent: “I don’t think there’s a word, ‘massive’ is not enough; people behind the scenes here in Berlin … they talk about are we going to part with the United States amicably or are we going to become enemies [my emphasis] … Europe has relied on the US so much since the Second World War is completely new thinking; just to prepare for a scenario with, if you will, would-be enemies on two sides; in the East with Russia launching a hybrid attack and then [an enemy] in the West as well.” They go on to talk about the possible need for conscription in Germany.
The political correspondents were talking like bourgeois brat adult children who had expected that they should be able to enjoy a power-lifestyle underwritten by ‘big daddy’ always there as a financial and security backstop; and just realising that the rug of entitlement might be being pulled from under them. Michaela Küfner (Chief Political Editor of DW) goes on to talk about an “existential threat from the United States”, meaning the withdrawal (and potential enmity) of the great protector. “Like your Rich Uncle from across the ocean turning against you”, she said.
Nina Haase: “Pacifism, the very word, needs to be redefined in Germany … Germans are only now able to understand that you have to have weapons in order not to use them.” She was referring to earlier generations of pacifists (like me) who saw weapons as the problem, not the solution.
Ulrike Franke: “Everything needs to change for everything to stay the same”, basically saying Germany itself may have to pursue domestic Rich Uncle policies to maintain the lifestyles of the (entitled) ten percenters.
Michaela Küfner, towards the end of the discussion: “The AFD is framing [the supporters of] the parties which will make up the coming coalition as the political class who we will challenge”. And she noted, but only at the very end of the long discussion, that the effectively disenfranchised people in Eastern Germany are “a lot more Russia-friendly”.
Maybe Merz has a plan to build employment-rich munitions factories in Eastern Germany, to address both his security concerns and the obvious political discontent arising from unemployment and fast-eroding living standards? But Merz will have to abandon his innate fiscal conservatism before he can even contemplate that; can he do a Hoover to Hitler transition? Rearmament was Hitler’s game; his means to full employment after the Depression.
Implications for Democracy
I sense that Friedrich Merz will become the face of coming German politics, just as Angela Merkel once was, and as Trump and Starmer are very much the faces of government in their countries; becoming – albeit through democratic means – similar to the autocrats that, in Eastern and Middle-Eastern countries, they [maybe not Trump] rail against.
We might note that if we look carefully at World War One and World War Two, the core conflict was Germany versus Russia. Will World War Three be the same? And which side will ‘we’ (or ‘US’) be on? In WW1 and WW2, we were on Russia’s side. (Hopefully, in the future, we can be neutral with respect to other countries’ conflicts.)
Democracy is under strain worldwide. The diminishing establishment-centre – the political and economic elites and the people with secure employment and housing who still vote for familiar major parties – is clinging on to power, and for the time-being remains more powerful than ever in Europe.
In the Europe of the early 1930s, it was the Great Depression as a period of abject political failure that resulted in the suspension of democracy. All the signs are that the same failures of democratic leadership – worldwide from the 1920s – will bring about similar consequences.
For democracies to save themselves, they should bring non-establishment voices to the table. In 2025. Germany will be another important test case, already sowing the seeds of political failure. We should be wary of demonising the far non-establishment-right while lionising the far establishment-right.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Some of Australia’s major professional sports – such as the Australian Football League (AFL) and its clubs, the National Rugby League (NRL) and its clubs and Cricket Australia – are treated as not-for-profits. This means they do not pay income tax.
Not-for-profits and charities
The not-for-profit sector in Australia consists of about 600,000 organisations, 59,000 of which contributed $43 billion to Australia’s economy in 2010 (2010 is the most recent available data).
Some not-for-profit organisations receive special designation as charities and must have a charitable purpose that benefits the public.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is aware of more than 200,000 entities that receive one or more tax concessions. But only 61,010 are registered charities.
Professinal sports and tax
Within the regulation of not-for-profits exists professional sport.
Sports receive an exemption from income tax if, under section 50-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, a club or association encourages or promotes a game or sport.
In addition, the organisation must not conduct business for the purpose of profit for members.
The sports exemption does not differentiate between professional and community (or amateur) sport, as is the case in New Zealand, where charities and taxation law limit a sports charity to an amateur organisation.
Therefore, major Australian professional sports are considered not-for-profits and do not pay income tax.
None of these entities are registered charities.
This raises questions of fairness: these organisations receive revenue that ranges from tens of millions of dollars in the case of clubs to hundreds of millions and even billions for leagues.
When the sports exemption was introduced in the 1950s, it was designed to assist small community clubs. This might include the local golf club that operates on a public course and has operating revenue of $10,000, or the local tennis or football club with similar revenues.
The big business of pro sports
In recent years, the revenues of professional sport have ballooned, primarily due to lucrative broadcasting deals.
Also, the AFL and NRL receive a percentage of the income of betting agencies, reportedly $30 million a year for the AFL and $50 million for the NRL.
Half of the NRL clubs are sponsored by betting companies and three NRL stadiums are named after betting agencies.
Some non-Victorian AFL clubs, such as Brisbane and Greater Western Sydney, have gambling sponsorships, but Victorian clubs have signed up to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation’s “Love the Game, Not the Odds” program.
This reliance on sports betting revenues raises issues as to the public benefit of these organisations and whether they should receive tax exemptions.
The issue of unrelated business income (the income a not-for-profit earns from commercial activities not related to its charitable purpose), especially from gambling and poker machines, raises concerns.
North Melbourne was the first Victorian AFL club to sell its poker machines in 2008. In 2016, it was the only club without pokies.
Collingwood sold its machines in 2018 and Hawthorn sold its two poker machine venues in 2022. But Carlton, Essendon, Richmond and St Kilda earned a collective $40 million from poker machines in 2022/2023.
The profits of poker machines by Victorian AFL clubs can be distinguished from sports clubs in New South Wales, where not less than 0.75% of poker machine profits must be distributed to charities under community development and support expenditure.
Poker machine venues are a considerable source of revenue in the NRL. In 2021, rugby league received $9.8 million from regional licensed clubs – $7.28 million to grassroots rugby and $2.52 million to NRL clubs.
Metropolitan venues gave $29.67 million to rugby league – $17.09 million to grassroots rugby and $12.58 million to NRL clubs.
A possible solution
Unrelated business income tax (UBIT) is a tax on the unrelated business income of not-for-profits. Related business income for a not-for-profit is membership fees and services directly related to the members such as restaurants or meals.
However, the major source of unrelated business income for sports are sponsorship and income from gambling companies and poker machines.
In the context of professional sport, a UBIT would fairly treat leagues and clubs, which increasingly engage in commercial activities outside their charitable activities, with a public benefit without removing the tax exemption.
For example, a UBIT would tax the profits of clubs with poker machines. It would also tax some of Australia’s most profitable professional sports clubs and leagues for revenue not related to promoting the sports.
It would also help distinguish between “real” not-for-profits and professional sports.
In doing so, it would also create a fair regulatory environment for the operation of for-profit and not-for-profit businesses.
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.
Europe is warmed by heat from ocean currents, which move water from the warm tropics to the colder North Atlantic. Once the warm, salty water from the tropics reach the polar region, they cool enough to sink to the depths and flow back towards the Southern Ocean.
This enormous system of currents is known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Climate scientists are increasingly worried about the AMOC, which appears to be slowing down.
While there’s still debate over whether the AMOC has weakened over the last decades, climate models consistently show the AMOC will significantly weaken over the coming century due to the increase in heat-trapping atmospheric greenhouse gases. As more heat stays in the system, the ocean heats up and ice melts, adding fresh water to polar oceans. The overall effect is to slow these currents. The AMOC could weaken 30% by 2060.
A weaker AMOC would mean big changes in Europe, which benefits directly from the warmer waters it brings. But it would also change the climate in the Southern Hemisphere. Our new research shows a weakening of the AMOC would lead to a large change in rainfall patterns, leading to wetter summers in northern Australia and a drier New Zealand year-round. Indonesia and northern Papua New Guinea would also become drier.
Running AMOC?
In the Earth’s long history, the AMOC has gone through many periods of weakening. These were most common during ice ages, when glaciers expanded, but they also occurred during periods as warm as today.
To reconstruct past climates, researchers use data from ice cores, marine sediment cores and speleothems (mineral deposits in caves such as flowstone and stalagmites), as well as simulations performed with climate models. These data show a weaker AMOC strongly affected the climate in the Northern Hemisphere. When flows of warmer water faltered, sea ice expanded in the North Atlantic, while Europe endured colder, drier conditions and the northern tropics became drier.
If the AMOC weakens significantly, it will mean major change for Northern Hemisphere nations. Average temperatures could actually drop 3°C in Western Europe.
At present, the AMOC’s flows of warmer water give European nations more pleasant climates and keeps ports ice free, while the Canadian side of the North Atlantic has a much more severe climate.
What does it mean for the Southern Hemisphere?
Data from ice cores and marine sediment cores also showed Antarctica and the Southern Ocean became warmer during these past AMOC weakening events. Until now, we haven’t understood what an AMOC weakening would mean for rainfall in the Australasian region.
To find out, we ran climate model simulations with the Australian Earth system model, ACCESS-ESM1.5. Our modelling reveals a complex and regionally varied response, primarily shaped by large-scale atmospheric changes.
As the AMOC weakens, it sets off a chain reaction in the oceans and atmosphere which alter rainfall and temperatures across Australasia.
A weaker AMOC would affect ocean temperatures, cooling surface waters in the northern hemisphere and warming waters in the southern hemisphere. This would push the Intertropical Convergence Zone – a belt of heavy rain near the equator – further south.
This means areas such as northern Papua New Guinea and Indonesia will get less rain, while northern Australia will cop wetter summers.
Next, a warmer south equatorial Atlantic triggers atmospheric waves – large-scale movements of air that travel across the globe. These waves lower air pressure over northern Australia, pulling in more moisture and making summer rainfall even heavier.
At the same time, a weaker AMOC disrupts the usual tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean dynamics, altering wind patterns and pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere. High pressure systems shift southward, affecting storm tracks. The overall effect is fewer storms reaching southern Australia and New Zealand, leading to drier winters.
Last, as the Atlantic currents peter out, heat builds up in Southern Hemisphere oceans rather than being carried to the poles. This results in hotter summers, particularly in southern Australia and New Zealand.
Deluges and droughts
It’s likely we will see these important currents weaken this century, bringing major change to both hemispheres.
Those in Australia and New Zealand are likely to see a magnification of some existing climate shifts, such as a drier south and wetter north.
Policymakers and resource managers need to prepare for a future where water becomes an increasingly uncertain resource.
In the north, more rain over summer could mean a greater reliance on water storage and flood mitigation. In the south, drier conditions may force increased water use efficiency and drought planning.
In New Zealand, a year-round drying trend could challenge farm productivity and hydropower generation. Long-term water management will be critical.
What happens in the North Atlantic doesn’t stay there. It ripples through the atmosphere and oceans, with far-reaching consequences.
Himadri Saini receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Laurie Menviel receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
When Donald Trump’s benefactor and cost-cutter-in-chief Elon Musk recently supported a call for the United States to quit NATO and the United Nations, it should perhaps have been more surprising.
But the first months of the second Trump presidency have already seen key parts of the current international order undermined. Musk’s position fits a general pattern.
The drive to slash the federal deficit dovetails with this general abandonment of expensive international commitments. If the Trump regime follows through on its apparent strategy of manufacturing crises to advance its agenda, then leaving the UN entirely is a logical next step.
Undermined ideals
This is all in stark contrast to the central role the UN has traditionally played within the US-led international order since 1945.
Along with other institutions, the UN allowed the US to shape the international system in its own image and spread its domestic values and interests across the world. Along with NATO, the UN was designed as a global security institution to produce global stability.
In theory at least, the political and economic values of the US and other democracies enabled the construction of the postwar order. According to political scientist John Ikenberry, this was based on “multilateralism, alliance partnerships, strategic restraint, cooperative security, and institutional and rule-based relationships”.
But by the 21st century, US actions had undermined many of these principles. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 bypassed the authority of the UN, causing then secretary-general Kofi Annan to declare that “from the charter point of view [the invasion] was illegal”.
This undermined the legitimacy of the UN and America’s place within it. But it also diminished the organisation as a force for maintaining international security and national sovereignty in global affairs.
The subsequent human rights violations by the US through its use of rendition, torture and detention at facilities such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib further weakened the UN’s credibility as a protector of liberal international values.
Since the 1990s, several Republican politicians have argued for the US to withdraw entirely from the UN. In 1997, senator Ron Paul introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, aimed at ending UN membership, expelling the UN headquarters from New York and ending US funding.
Although it received minimal support and never reached committee hearings, Paul reintroduced the act in every congressional session until his 2011 retirement. It was then taken up by other Republicans, including Paul Broun and Mike Rogers.
Americans’ hard-earned dollars have been funnelled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values – enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry.
In 1920, US isolationists blocked the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and with it US participation in the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations). Although the US would interact with the League of Nations until the UN’s formation in 1945, it never became an official member.
Criticism of the UN also has a bipartisan angle, with the US withdrawing funding of UNRWA in 2024 during Joe Biden’s presidency after Israel accused the agency of links to Hamas.
A diminished UN
If Trump harnesses these historical and modern forces to pull the US out of the UN, it would fundamentally – and likely irrevocably – undermine what has been a central pillar of the current international order.
It would also increase US isolationism, reduce Western influence, and legitimise alternative security bodies. These include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which the US could potentially join, especially given Russia and India are both members.
More broadly, the reduced influence of the UN will endanger general peace and security in the international sphere, and the wider protection and promotion of human rights.
There would be greater unpredictability in global affairs, and the world would be a more dangerous place. For countries big and small, a UN without the US will force new strategic calculations and create new alliances and blocs, as the world leaps into the unknown.
Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University
Over the weekend the Australian government announced A$644 million to build an extra 50 Medicare urgent care clinics around Australia. This is on top of nearly $600 million previously committed to establish 87 clinics.
Once these 50 new clinics open in the 2025–26 financial year, the government says four in five Australians will live within a 20 minute drive to a clinic. While this seems like a worthy pursuit, the question is whether they are worth the taxpayer dollar, when we already have GPs and emergency departments.
So what does the evidence say? Are urgent care clinics worth the money?
Remind me, what are urgent care clinics?
Urgent care clinics provide bulk-billed care for urgent but not life-threatening conditions, seven days a week for extended business hours. No appointment is necessary and anyone with a Medicare card can walk in and receive care. You can search online for your closest clinic.
Clinics are staffed by GPs and nurses. They treat people who perhaps don’t want to wait for a GP appointment, attend an emergency department or call healthdirect. Injuries and illnesses treated include minor infections and cuts, minor sports injuries and respiratory illness.
Patients may benefit from urgent care clinics through quicker access to care and lower costs if they would not otherwise be bulk billed.
They don’t however get to see their regular GP, which may reduce the appeal for patients who value continuity of care, such as those with chronic or mental health conditions.
Meanwhile, access to GP bulk-billing services has declined. The government is trying to address this by paying GPs billions more to reduce costs for patients.
Medicare urgent care clinics were introduced to reduce workload pressure on GPs, take pressure off public hospital emergency departments, and improve access to affordable primary care.
They were first announced by the Labor Party in 2022 when in opposition. Labor wanted to build its reputation as being “Medicare’s guardian”, a theme continued in the lead up to this next federal election.
Is there any evidence they work?
Medicare urgent care clinics were first established less than two years ago. While some states had already introduced these types of clinics, it will take time for Medicare urgent care clinics to embed themselves into the health-care system and for patients to become familiar with them.
Cost and waiting times are significant factors for people choosing between primary care, urgent care clinics and the emergency department.
Around 19% of people visited an emergency department in 2022–23 because the GP was not available when required.
Research suggests many people may have used urgent care clinics to avoid GP co-payments, and many may have used them because waiting times to see a GP were too long.
The Albanese government reported there had been one million visits to urgent care clinics as of December 2024 (about 1.5 years after they first opened). While this may seem impressive, it should be viewed in the context of emergency department presentations. There were 9 million of those in 2023–24.
Direct evidence on whether Medicare urgent care clinics are taking pressure off emergency departments does not yet exist. While research from the United States suggests these types of clinics reduce emergency department presentations, the effects won’t necessarily be the same in Australia.
The amount of time patients spend in emergency departments continues to rise across Australia.
Many patients will still use emergency departments despite access to clinics. Around 40% of emergency department presentations address an ailment that an urgent care clinic may handle, but only 16% of people who attend an emergency department think their care could have been delivered by a GP.
How can we improve their chance of success?
We need targeted public messaging to make sure patients understand how and when to best use urgent care clinics.
If we channel minor injuries and illness after hours into an urgent care clinic, rather than funding multiple after hours general practices to remain open, we could reduce health system costs. That is because the cost per patient will go down as the number of patients treated within a clinic increases.
None of this will work unless we have enough health workers to staff these clinics. Currently there are shortages of GPs and nurses, so urgent care clinics are competing with general practices for their workforce.
These workforce shortages are less than ideal and could increase GP waiting times or reduce the viability of urgent care clinics. The Mount Gambier urgent care clinic recently went into liquidation amid staff shortages.
The government has announced additional funding to train more GPs and nurses. Workforce investment is crucial to meet increasing demands, but will take time.
To the future
The government has committed more than $1 billion to urgent care clinics to date. Understanding whether urgent care clinics substitute for GP or emergency department presentations, or merely provide additional health-care access, is vital to their success. We need comprehensive and long-term evaluations to fully understand the extent to which urgent care clinics meet their objectives.
Henry Cutler has previously received funding from Northern Territory Health.
Frogs and other amphibians rely on the surrounding environment to regulate their body temperature. On hot days they might seek shade, water or cool spaces underground. But what if everywhere is too hot?
There is a limit to how much heat amphibians can tolerate. My colleagues and I wanted to work out how close amphibians are to reaching these limits, globally.
Our new research, published today in Nature, shows 2% of the world’s amphibians are already overheating. Even when they have access to shade and moisture, more than 100 species are struggling to maintain a viable body temperature.
If global temperatures rise by 4°C, nearly 400 species (or 1 in 13 amphibians) could be pushed to their limits. However, this assumes access to shade and water, so it’s probably an underestimate. Habitat loss, drought and disease will likely make even more amphibians vulnerable to heat stress.
Here is why that matters — and what we can do about it.
Finding the missing pieces of the puzzle
The critical thermal maximum is the temperature beyond which an ectothermic (“cold-blooded”) species simply cannot function.
In laboratory experiments, it is defined as the temperature that renders the frog or salamander unable to right themselves when flipped on their back, or when they start having muscular spasms.
At this temperature, they are incapacitated and unable to escape. If amphibians stay under those conditions for extended periods, they will eventually die.
First, we searched the scientific literature for data on heat tolerance in amphibians and compiled a database. This database covers more than 600 species, but that’s only 7.5% of amphibians on Earth. Knowledge of the heat tolerance of amphibians from tropical regions and the Global South is especially sparse.
To build a global picture, we needed to fill those gaps. We used statistical models to predict the heat tolerance of species missing from the database.
Think of it like solving a puzzle: if a piece is missing, we can make an educated guess of what it looks like, based on the pieces around it.
By using what we know about a species’ biology and how its relatives cope with heat, we can predict how much heat it is likely to tolerate. With this approach, we estimated heat tolerance limits for more than 5,000 amphibian species — around 60% of all known species.
We then compared each species’ tolerance limits to temperatures experienced over the past decade, as well as future conditions under different climate scenarios. That allowed us to see which species could be pushed over the edge by extreme heat events.
We found 2% of amphibians (about 100 species) are probably already overheating. This is an optimistic scenario, assuming they always have access to shaded and humid conditions. In reality, many amphibians live in disturbed habitats, where shade and water are in short supply.
If global temperatures rise by 4°C, the number of vulnerable species jumps from 2% to about 7.5%. That’s nearly a fourfold increase, meaning almost 400 species — 1 in 13 amphibians — could be pushed to their heat tolerance limits.
We also found some interesting regional patterns. In the southern hemisphere, tropical species are most exposed to overheating. However, in the northern hemisphere, species outside the tropics often face higher risk. This underscores how local temperatures and species-specific tolerance limits matter more than just the distance from the equator, challenging common assumptions about the greater vulnerability of tropical species.
Local extinctions — where a species can no longer survive in a particular area — may occur if extreme heat events become too frequent. Amphibians often cannot just hop to cooler places. Many cannot relocate to different areas because they depend on specific wetlands, steams and ponds to breed and feed. If these habitats disappear or become too hot, some amphibians may have nowhere else to go.
Dense vegetation and reliable water sources act like natural air conditioners for amphibians. Our results show that if amphibians can stay hydrated and cool, many can survive heatwaves. Yet climate change is rapidly making these moist refuges more scarce.
With increasing deforestation, habitat disturbance, and droughts, amphibians are losing their ability to cope with the heat. Active efforts to protect, restore, and connect forested areas and wetlands are increasingly needed to boost their chances of survival.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is also crucial. It’s clear every fraction of a degree counts. Keeping climate warming as low as possible will reduce the risk of sudden, widespread overheating events, not only for amphibians but also for countless other species.
But if we protect and restore forests, wetlands, ponds, and streams — and reduce carbon emissions — many species may stand a chance.
More research on amphibians is needed. Our statistical models help us predict which species are most at risk, but these predictions cannot replace on-the-ground research.
By studying these species directly, we can better understand the threats they face and optimise conservation efforts. This is particularly needed in the lesser-studied areas of South America, Africa and Asia.
Amphibians have been around for millions of years. They are part of our cultural heritage and play vital roles in balancing ecosystems. Let’s not lose them to a climate crisis we hopefully still have time to fix.
Patrice Pottier works as a postdoctoral researcher for The University of New South Wales, Sydney. This research was funded by a UNSW Scientia PhD scholarship. Patrice Pottier is also a board member of the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary biology (SORTEE).
Boycotts are back. With people worried about everything from labour practices and human rights to tariffs and equal opportunity initiatives, collective consumer resistance has been rising globally.
Right now, there are several month-long boycotts of Target underway in the United States due to the company abandoning its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programme. Longer boycotts of specific corporations, beginning with Amazon, are scheduled for March and April.
Last week, the non-partisan, grassroots People’s Union USA organised a “national economic blackout” by urging consumers to avoid buying anything beyond essentials. The inaugural event was, in part, spurred by anger at government cuts being made in the US by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, with organisers saying:
Our strength lies in economic power. If corporations control politicians through money, then we control corporations by withholding ours. Targeted boycotts, economic blackouts, and financial pressure will make them listen.
More widely, the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestiture, and Sanction (BDS) campaign against Israeli goods and companies has been operating for years now. And anti-American boycotts are underway in Canada as increased tariffs take effect .
As these campaigns gain momentum, some consumers will question how effective boycotts are at changing corporate behaviour. But there is a long history of ordinary citizens successfully “voting with their wallets”, even before the term “boycott” was coined.
Origins of the boycott
In 1792, a British campaign to stop buying sugar produced by enslaved Africans in the West Indies began. This originated in the American colonies with Quakers rejecting sugar in the 1750s. They viewed enslaved Africans as stolen people, and therefore slave products as stolen goods.
In Britain, the abolitionist movement appealed to women as household managers to give up slave products and sign a petition to end slavery. The power of this ethical consumerism gave women, not yet allowed to vote, a voice to parliament and a tangible way to participate in the cause.
The word “boycott” itself originated during the 1880 Irish Land Wars, and referred to the resistance to English land agent and former army officer Captain Charles Boycott. Tenants of the absentee landlord he represented complained he “treated his cattle better than he did us”.
Protests outside the gates of Captain Boycott’s residence during the Land League boycott in Ireland in 1880. Hulton Archive/Getty Images
After Boycott imposed fines and employed police to attempt evictions, the Irish Land League responded with a campaign to ostracise him. Crowds intimidated workers so his crops would not be harvested, local shops refused to sell to him, and the post boy was threatened to stop deliveries.
The parish priest, Father John O’Malley, adopted the term “boycott” for this collective action because he thought the County Mayo locals wouldn’t remember the word “ostracise”. Boycott was forced to flee Ireland, and the new term spread across the country.
Some 75 years later, across the Atlantic, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white woman, as required by Alabama’s racial segregation laws. In 1955, the Montgomery Improvement Association organised a 13-month long boycott of the city’s buses, led by Martin Luther King Jr.
African-Americans, who made up 75% of passengers, refused to ride the buses. In 1956, the US Supreme Court ruled segregated public buses were unconstitutional.
American civil rights activist Rosa Parks sparked the 381 day Montgomery bus boycott, part of the wider civil rights movement in the US. Underwood Archives/Getty Images
Can boycotts work in the 21st century?
Boycotts are not the exclusive province of progressive activists. Across the political spectrum, the rejection of brands because of corporate behaviour has had moments of significant traction.
In 2023, beer company Bud Light collaborated with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a brand ambassador. A backlash from conservative consumers saw the boycott cost parent company Anheuser-Busch Inbev an estimated US$1 billion.
Bud Light also lost is status as the best-selling beer in the US to Mexican import Modelo. The brand then tried to back away from its marketing strategy, which only alienated the LGBTQIA+ community.
Broad campaigns, such as the historical ones mentioned here, can be successful. But specifically targeted boycotts tend to be more effective in attracting media attention and sustaining momentum in the modern consumer age.
The most recent economic data show US consumer confidence is faltering, with its biggest drop since the summer of 2021. Inflation and the potential impact of a trade war are dampening retail sentiment.
This fragile economic environment may amplify the effects of boycotts, if not in terms of profit, then in terms of brand reputation. As messaging becomes more common in the news and on social media, the current consumer boycotts in the US will be a test of how effective the strategy still is.
Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.
You can doubt just about anything. But there’s one thing you can know for sure: you are having thoughts right now.
This idea came to characterise the philosophical thinking of 17th century philosopher René Descartes. For Descartes, that we have thoughts may be the only thing we can be certain about.
But what exactly are thoughts? This is a mystery that has long troubled philosophers such as Descartes – and which has been given new life by the rise of artificial intelligence, as experts try to figure out whether machines can genuinely think.
Known for his proposition ‘cogito, ergo sum’ (‘I think, therefore I am’), Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was a leading figure in early modern philosophy and science. Wikimedia
Two schools of thought
There are two main answers to the philosophical question of what thoughts are.
The first is that thoughts might be material things. Thoughts are just like atoms, particles, cats, clouds and raindrops: part and parcel of the physical universe. This position is known as physicalism or materialism.
The second view is that thoughts might stand apart from the physical world. They are not like atoms, but are an entirely distinct type of thing. This view is called dualism, because it takes the world to have a dual nature: mental and physical.
To better understand the difference between these views, consider a thought experiment.
Suppose God is building the world from scratch. If physicalism is true, then all God needs to do to produce thoughts is build the basic physical components of reality – the fundamental particles – and put in place the laws of nature. Thoughts should follow.
However, if dualism is true, then putting in place the basic laws and physical components of reality will not produce thoughts. Some non-physical aspects of reality will need to be added, as thoughts are something over and above all physical components.
Why be a materialist?
If thoughts are physical, what physical things are they? One plausible answer is they are brain states.
This answer underpins much of contemporary neuroscience and psychology. Indeed, it is the apparent link between brains and thoughts that makes materialism seem plausible.
There are many correlations between our brain states and our thoughts. Certain parts of the brain predictably “light up” when someone is in pain, or if they think about the past or future.
What explains these correlations? One answer is that our thoughts just are varying states of the brain. This answer, if correct, speaks in favour of materialism.
Why be a dualist?
That said, the correlations between brain states and thoughts are just that: correlations. We don’t have an explanation of how brain states – or any physical states for that matter – give rise to conscious thought.
There is a well-known correlation between striking a match and the match lighting. But in addition to the correlation, we also have an explanation for why the match is lit when struck. The friction causes a chemical reaction in the match head, which leads to a release of energy.
We have no comparable explanation for a link between thoughts and brain states. After all, there seem to be many physical things that don’t have thoughts. We have no idea why brain states give rise to thoughts and chairs don’t.
Scans can show when and where our brains ‘light up’, but a clear connection between thoughts and brain states eludes us. Shutterstock
The colour scientist
The thing we are most certain about – that we have thoughts – is still completely unexplained in physical terms. That’s not for a lack of effort. Neuroscience, philosophy, cognitive science and psychology have all been hard at work trying to crack this mystery.
But it gets worse: we may never be able to explain how thoughts arise from neural states. To understand why, consider this famous thought experiment by Australian philosopher Frank Jackson.
Mary lives her entire life in a black-and-white room. She has never experienced colour. However, she also has access to a computer which contains a complete account of every physical aspect of the universe, including all the physical and neurological details of experiencing colour. She learns all of this.
One day, Mary leaves the room and experiences colour for the first time. Does she learn anything new?
It is very tempting to think she does: she learns what it’s like to experience colour. But remember, Mary already knew every physical fact about the universe. So if she learns something new, it must be some non-physical fact. Moreover, the fact she learns comes through experience, which means there must be some non-physical aspect to experience.
If you think Mary learns something new by leaving the room, you must accept dualism to be true in some form. And if that’s the case, then we can’t provide an explanation of thought in terms of the brain’s functions, or so philosophers have argued.
Minds and machines
Settling the question of what thoughts are won’t completely settle the question of whether machines can think, but it would help.
If thoughts are physical, then there’s no reason, in principle, why machines couldn’t think.
If thoughts are not physical, however, it’s less clear whether machines could think. Would it be possible to get them “hooked up” to the non-physical in the right way? This would depend on how non-physical thoughts relate to the physical world.
Either way, pursuing the question of what thoughts are will likely have significant implications for how we think about machine intelligence, and our place in nature.
Sam Baron receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Studies of ancient DNA have tended to focus on frozen land in the northern hemisphere, where woolly mammoths and bison roamed. Meanwhile, Antarctica has received relatively little attention. We set out to change that.
The most suitable sediments are exposed near the coast of the icy continent, where penguins like to breed. Their poo is a rich source of DNA, providing information about the health of the population as well as what penguins have been eating.
Our new research opens a window on the past of Adélie penguins in Antarctica, going back 6,000 years. It also offers a surprise glimpse into the shrinking world of southern elephant seals over the past 1,000 years.
Understanding how these species coped with climate change in the past can help us prepare for the future. Wildlife in Antarctica faces multiple emerging threats and will likely need support to cope with the many challenges ahead.
A unique marine ecosystem
Adélie penguins are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment. This makes them what we call a “sentinel species”, providing an early warning of imbalance or dysfunction in the coastal ecosystem. Their poo also provides a record of how they responded to changes in the past.
In our new research, we excavated pits up to 80cm deep at ten Adélie penguin colonies along the 700km Ross Sea coastline. We then collected 156 sediment samples from different depths in each excavation.
Six of these colonies were still active, meaning birds return annually to breed. The other four had been abandoned at various times over the past 6,000 years.
From these sediments we generated 94 billion DNA sequences, which provided us with an unparalleled window into the past lives of Adélie penguins and their ecosystem.
We detected the DNA of several animal species besides Adélie penguins. These animals included two other birds, three seals and two soil invertebrates.
Not all of this DNA came from penguin poo. Our samples also contained DNA from feathers, hairs or skin cells of other species in the environment at the time.
Sediment samples were taken from ten penguin colonies of various ages, six active (white dot) and four abandoned (coloured dot), on the coast of Ross Sea in Antarctica. Wood, J., et al (2025) Nature Communications, CC BY-NC-ND
Penguin population size and diet
When we took a closer look at the DNA from penguins of the present day, we found more genetic diversity in samples from larger colonies.
Recognising this relationship between genetic diversity and colony size enabled us to estimate the size of former colonies. We could also reconstruct population trends through time.
For example, in samples from active colonies, we found penguin genetic diversity increased as we sampled closer and closer to the surface. This may reflect population growth over the past century.
The DNA also revealed changes in penguin diets over time. Over the past 4,000 years, the penguins in the southern Ross Sea switched from mainly eating one type of fish – the bald notothen – to another, Antarctic silverfish.
The bald notothen lives beneath the sea ice, so this prey-switching was likely driven by a change in sea ice extent compared with the past.
Examples of an active Adélie penguin colony (Cape Hallett), and a 6,000 year old abandoned Adélie penguin colony site (Terra Nova Bay). Jamie Wood
Surprise! Elephant seals
We made an unexpected discovery at Cape Hallett, in the northern Ross Sea. This is the site of an active penguin colony.
Samples of sediment from close to the surface contained lots of penguin DNA and eggshell. But samples from further down, where penguin DNA and eggshell were scarce, contained DNA from southern elephant seals.
Today, elephant seals are uncommon visitors to the Antarctic continent, and breed on subantarctic islands including Macquarie, Campbell and Antipodes Islands. Yet, bones of elephant seal pups found along the Ross Sea coast indicate the species used to breed in the area.
Carbon dating of these bones indicate elephant seal colonies began disappearing from the southern Ross Sea around 1,000 years ago. Over the following 200 years, colonies in the northern Ross Sea began vanishing too.
As the climate cooled and the extent of sea ice increased, elephant seals could no longer access suitable breeding sites. These sites were then taken over by Adélie penguins who expanded into areas once occupied by seals.
Our DNA evidence suggests Cape Hallett was one of the last strongholds of southern elephant seals on the icy continent. But we may yet again see elephant seals breeding on the Antarctic mainland as the world warms and sea ice melts.
Even more ancient DNA in Antarctica
Our study spans the past 6,000 years, but our research suggests it would be possible to go even further back.
The DNA fragments we found were very well preserved, showing little of the damage expected in warmer climates.
So it should be possible to obtain much older DNA from sediments on land in Antarctica – maybe even 1 million-year-old DNA, as recently reported from Antarctic sediments beneath the ocean floor.
Worthy of lasting protection
In December 2017, 2.09 million square kilometres of the Ross Sea and adjoining Southern Ocean became the world’s largest marine protected area. Establishing the protection was a major achievement, yet it was only afforded for 35 years.
After 2052, continuation of the region’s protected status will require international agreement. Knowledge of the vulnerability of local species and their risk in the face of change will play a key role in informing the decision. Our research provides a case study for how ancient environmental DNA can contribute towards this understanding.
This research was part of the Ross Sea Region Research and Monitoring Programme,, funded by the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.
Theresa Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Cities can be deeply unwelcoming places for wildlife. They are noisy, difficult to get around, full of people and heavily reliant on artificial lighting. Yet some species do better in urban areas than in rural ones.
Research is showing that animals of the same species that live in cities and the countryside are behaving differently. These disparities will probably grow since
over half of people worldwide now live in urban areas, and cities and towns are getting bigger.
A recent study from Tel Aviv University found that Egyptian fruit bats living in urban parts of Israel gave birth two and a half weeks earlier than rural populations. This gives them an advantage as they are more likely to reproduce twice per year.
In the urban areas in the study there was a higher abundance and diversity of fruit trees. In Tel Aviv, for instance, the trees are watered. This means there is fruit for a longer period across the year, meaning more reliable food supplies for the bats.
They may also be benefiting from the urban heat island effect, with warmer temperatures reducing the harshness of the winters felt by their rural neighbours.
Most species perceive humans as predators, so our presence disturbs and distracts them from feeding and breeding. To survive in human-dominated cities, animals must therefore be bold.
This is something researchers have studied for a while in wildlife like foxes. Urban foxes are often more confident in their response to new food when it is presented in a novel object like a puzzle box.
Urban birds, from robins to feral pigeons, are also bolder. In a 2008 study scientists found that urban birds are more tolerant of human disturbance than rural ones), allowing humans to approach them closely.
The birds that reacted less to approaching humans were descended from a large number of generations since urbanisation, showing a long history of adaptation. This behavioural change helps these animals to adjust their stress responses when they are exposed to new situations. If they did not do this, they would suffer with chronic stress.
To test whether this boldness in birds is due to evolutionary adaptations, one 2006 experimental study in Germany hand-raised blackbird chicks taken from both an urban centre and a nearby forest.
They kept all the birds in the same environment until they were adults and then tested their acute stress responses when the birds were caught and handled. The birds from the city had a lower stress response, suggesting that this difference was genetically determined.
However, urban birds tend to be less successful in raising chicks than those in more natural areas. Although birds can take advantage of food provided by people in many cities and towns across the world – whether directly in bird feeders, or by scavenging on our discarded food – urban areas do not provide enough of the invertebrate prey that many nestlings need.
Many of these changes in urban species are difficult for people to detect, but one in particular becomes clear when you spend time in cities across the world. Have you noticed that whichever city you visit there seem to be many animals of the same species?
Scientists call this biotic homogenisation. It happens when places start to become increasingly similar over time with the species that you can find there.
This process begins with the exodus of species that cannot tolerate living alongside humans. Large mammals, often predators, are the first to go as an area becomes increasingly urbanised.
Then the non-native species begin to move in. Feral pigeons, rats, starlings and many other species are introduced by people over time, whether accidentally or deliberately, until a point is reached when the biodiversity found in one city, say in the US, starts to resemble another in Europe.
Urbanisation is continually changing our relationship with animals and how we perceive nature. Although scientists debate whether we have entered the Anthropocene (a new geological age based on significant planetary changes caused by humans) it is undeniable that humans have and still are moulding landscapes to suit our needs.
The growth of cities and other urban areas is set to continue, with future urban expansion predicted to swallow 11-33 million hectares of natural habitat by 2100, an area the size of Norway. Indeed, humans are becoming the largest driving force in the evolution of wildlife.
Becky Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australians largely support transforming the economy to increase recycling, repurpose products and reduce waste, according to a new report from the Productivity Commission, but they are being impeded by inconsistent regulations.
The interim report of the commission’s inquiry into Australia’s circular economy, released Wednesday night, also finds consumers need more information about the durability and repairability of products.
The report says that despite increased awareness of the benefits of a circular economy, the transformation has been complex and progress has been slow.
The first is designing and making goods without waste and pollution. This includes using renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions.
The second is keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible. This can be achieved by maintaining or repairing products to extend their life.
The third principle is regeneration. This means promoting activities with positive outcomes. This could include activities to deal with biodiversity loss, or social benefits through food relief and donations.
Some businesses are already using circular economy practices but compared to other developed countries, Australia is well behind. The recent CSIRO study found only 3.7% of the Australian economy is circular, half of the world’s average of 7.2%.
In December last year the Federal government released the National Circular Economy Framework providing guidance how to increase circularity.
Coinciding with this, the Productivity Commission evaluated circular economy opportunities in six priority sectors – built environment, food and agriculture, textiles and clothing, vehicles, mining and electronics.
Priority areas
The priority areas were selected based on the impact their materials has on the environment and the economy.
For example, the construction sector uses large quantities of materials which are expensive to recycle. While the increased use of electric vehicles is a bonus for the environment, the lithium-ion batteries they use pose a fire risk if incorrectly managed.
How much impact a particular area has on Australia, was also taken into account.
For example, Australians are the largest consumers of textiles in the world per capita. But most of these are imported, limiting our influence on how they are made.
Also, the impact and effectiveness of policies and regulations was also considered. Stakeholders across government and community sectors provided detailed submissions that informed the commission’s assessment.
Getting consumers, government and business onboard
The Productivity Commission noted material consumption and waste generation has not changed since 2010. This is because consumers are not repairing and reusing appliances or recycling which is important to a circular economy.
While the report recommends how food waste should be managed, consumers need to change their behaviour to reduce the waste they generate.
To do this, however, consumers need information about making informed purchasing decisions. For e-waste, they need easy access to repair services to extend the life of their products rather than buying new.
The report repeats earlier recommendations about repairs and reuse from the Productivity Commission’s 2021 Right to Repair inquiry.
That inquiry recommended the government develop a product labelling scheme giving consumers information about how durable household appliances are and whether they can be repaired.
We believe implementing these recommendations would bring Australia in line with global best practice reflected in the European Eco-design Sustainable Product regulations.
Impeded by regulations
This report highlights the importance of consistent policies and regulations. These currently vary across sectors and jurisdictions.
Standards enabling the use of recycled materials in construction, consistent rules on the disposal of lithium-ion batteries and consistent kerbside recycling guidelines were all needed.
The Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group recommended in their final report in December new legislation, a governance model and investment in innovation to help Australia move to a circular economy.
Help for business
When designed well, circular business models have the potential to reduce waste materials and carbon emissions.
Comparing the circular and linear economies. Productivity Commission, CC BY-SA
However, changing industry and consumer practices represents a big change. As well as inconsistent regulations slowing the transformation, making processes more innovative and experimenting with new technologies can be costly.
The Productivity Commission report says government can help reduce barriers to implementation of circular business models given business has a pivotal role in
driving this transition.
It also supports product stewardship, an approach where producers, importers and brands are responsible and liable for the impact their products have on the environment and on human health across the product life cycle.
Regulations for product stewardship was identified in the report as important, particularly in textiles and clothing, vehicles, EV batteries, solar panels and consumer electronics.
Towards net zero
Several international studies have reported that a circular economy will be needed to achieve net zero targets.
In Australia, the industry sector including mining, manufacturing and construction is responsible for around 34% of total emissions. Using materials more efficiently will help reduce them.
Agriculture, despite its small contribution to the GDP (2.4%), alone contributes 18% to greenhouse gas emissions.
As the report notes, most of these emissions (80%) come from livestock and use of synthetic fertilisers (15%). But only food waste is identified as one of the priority areas.
It should be noted though that food waste only accounts for 3% of emissions. So reducing emissions from agriculture, switching to renewable fertilisers and changing livestock diets should also be a priority.
The Productivity Commission will send its final report to government by August this year.
Melita Jazbec receives research funding from various government and non-government sources. Melita Jazbec is currently conducting research projects on circular economy funded by Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and by AgriFutures.
Melita Jazbec made a submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry which also interviewed her.
Monique Retamal receives research funding from federal DCCEEW, Circular Australia and state government environment departments. Monique was interviewed by the Productivity Commission inquiry.
Nick Florin receives funding from government and non-government organisations, including the Federal department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water, and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation. Nick is also a Director of the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence.
Stuart White receives research funding from various government and non-government sources.
The Marshall Islands marked 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tests ever conducted were unleashed over the weekend.
The Micronesian nation experienced 67 known atmospheric nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, resulting in an ongoing legacy of death, illness, and contamination.
The country’s President Hilda Heine says her people continue to face the impacts of US nuclear weapons testing seven decades after the last bomb was detonated.
The Pacific Islands have a complex history of nuclear weapons testing, but the impacts are very much a present-day challenge, Heine said at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Tonga last year.
She said that the consequences of nuclear weapons testing “in our own home” are “expensive” and “cross-cutting”.
“When I was just a young girl, our islands were turned into a big laboratory to test the capabilities of weapons of mass destruction, biological warfare agents, and unexploded ordinance,” she said.
“The impacts are not just historical facts, but contemporary challenges,” she added, noting that “the health consequences for the Marshallese people are severe and persistent through generations.”
“We are now working to reshape the narrative from that of being victims to one of active agencies in helping to shape our own future and that of the world around us,” she told Pacific leaders, where the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres was a special guest.
President Hilda Heine and UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Nuku’alofa, Tonga, in August 2024 Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
She said the displacement of communities from ancestral lands has resulted in grave cultural impacts, hindering traditional knowledge from being passed down to younger generations.
“As well as certain traditional practices, customs, ceremonies and even a navigational school once defining our very identity and become a distant memory, memorialised through chance and storytelling,” President Heine said.
“The environmental legacy is contamination and destruction: craters, radiation, toxic remnants, and a dome containing radioactive waste with a half-life of 24,000 years have rendered significant areas uninhabitable.
“Key ecosystems, once full of life and providing sustenance to our people, are now compromised.”
Heine said cancer and thyroid diseases were among a list of presumed radiation-induced medical conditions that were particularly prevalent in the Marshallese community.
Displacement, loss of land, and psychological trauma were also contributing factors to high rates of non-communicable diseases, she said.
Runit Dome, also known as “The Tomb”, in the Marshall Islands . . , controversial nuclear waste storage. Image: RNZ Pacific
“Despite these immense challenges, the Marshallese people have shown remarkable resilience and strength. Our journey has been one of survival, advocacy, and an unyielding pursuit of justice.
“We have fought tirelessly to have our voices heard on the international stage, seeking recognition.”
In 2017, the Marshall Islands government created the National Nuclear Commission to coordinate efforts to address testing impacts.
“We are a unique and important moral compass in the global movement for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation,” Heine said.
Kurt Campbell at the Pacific Islands Forum . . . “I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
The US Deputy Secretary of State in the Biden-Harris administration Kurt Cambell said that Washington, over decades, had committed billions of dollars to the damage and the rebuilding of the Marshall Islands.
“I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden, and we are doing what we can to support the people in the [Compact of Free Association] states, including the Marshall Islands,” he said.
“This is not a legacy that we seek to avoid. We have attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment,” he told reporters in Nuku’alofa.
A shared nuclear legacy The National Nuclear Commission chairperson Ariana Tibon-Kilma, a direct descendant of survivors of the nuclear weapons testing programme Project 4.1 — which was the top-secret medical lab study on the effects of radiation on human bodies — told RNZ Pacific that what occured in Marshall Islands should not happen to any country.
“This programme was conducted without consent from any of the Marshallese people,” she said.
“For a number of years, they were studied and monitored, and sometimes even flown out to the US and displayed as a showcase.
“The history and trauma associated with what happened to my family, as well as many other families in the Marshall Islands, was barely spoken of.
“What happened to the Marshallese people is something that we would not wish upon any other Pacific island country or any other person in humanity.”
She said the nuclear legacy was a shared one.
“We all share one Pacific Ocean and what happened to the Marshall Islands, I am, sure resonates throughout the Pacific,” Tibon-Kilma said.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Pacific head Heike Alefsen at the Pacific Islands Forum . . . “I think compensation for survivors is key.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Billions in compensation The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Pacific head, Heike Alefsen, told RNZ Pacific in Nuku’alofa that “we understand that there are communities that have been displaced for a long time to other islands”.
“I think compensation for survivors is key,” she said.
“It is part of a transitional justice approach. I can’t really speak to the breadth and the depth of the compensation that would need to be provided, but it is certainly an ongoing issue for discussion.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Tropical Cyclone Alfred is forecast to strike densely populated areas of southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales. Brisbane, home to more than 2.5 million people, is among the places in the storm’s path.
Brisbane City Council says almost 20,000 properties in the Queensland capital could be affected by storm surge or flooding. Residents have been urged to consider relocating ahead of the cyclone’s arrival.
The warning is based on new modelling produced by the council, based on the latest Bureau of Meteorology forecasts. Affected properties could experience damage ranging from mild inundation in yards to significant flooding inside homes.
The council says impacts may extend beyond those areas highlighted in the modelling. Suburbs identified as most at risk include Nudgee Beach, Brighton, Windsor, Ashgrove, Morningside and Rocklea.
The maps below show the predicted flood extent based on advice issued by the bureau.
For cyclone preparedness and safety advice, go to Get Ready Queensland. For emergency assistance call the State Emergency Service (SES) in NSW or Queensland on 132 500.
This new article in The Conversation also outlines how to prepare for the cyclone, including what to pack, how to soothe children and how to protect your home.
Australia’s economy expanded at the fastest pace in two years in the December quarter, boosted by an improvement in household spending and stronger exports.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ national accounts report today said the economy grew by 0.6% in the quarter. It attributed this to “modest growth […] broadly across the economy […] supported by an increase in exports”.
Annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth for the year to December 2024 was 1.3%. That’s not especially high in historical terms, but as good as we have seen since late 2022. The long-term average growth for the Australian economy is closer to 2.7%.
It is one of the last pieces of major economic data before the next federal election, and will provide some comfort to the Labor government.
The per capita recession is over
A further encouraging sign is that GDP per head of population is no longer shrinking. It is tiny, rising a mere 0.1%, but at least is positive.
This follows seven consecutive quarters where the per capita measure declined. Today’s report ends what some call a “per capita recession”: when the economy grows slower than population, so in terms of production per person we actually go backwards.
Households spent more – on furniture, appliances, clothing, hotels, cafes and restaurants, health care and electricity. Consumption grew by 0.4% – which added to economic growth.
Households also saved more – the saving to income ratio grew from 3.6% to 3.8%, the highest in nine quarters. How were households able to save, even while they spent more? The answer is wages are growing even more strongly.
Employee compensation increased by 2% across the board, in both the public and private sectors. The compensation figure also reflects a 0.7% increase in hours worked.
Other contributors to positive economic growth in the quarter were government spending and exports of goods and services. Agriculture was a strong performer (up 7.3%) due to meat exports to the United States and increased grains production following favourable weather conditions.
What GDP doesn’t measure
Nevertheless, GDP does not capture important dimensions of wellbeing.
It omits things we value such as unpaid work, and the natural environment. Spending on recovery from a disaster improves GDP; if disaster never happens the numbers are unaffected.
Australian statistician David Gruen outlined the limitations of GDP in a speech he gave in 2010, while still at Treasury. Economists and statisticians alike recognise those limitations.
Still, the alternative to GDP growth is a recession: people lose jobs and income, businesses go broke. So overall, this latest release is a positive set of numbers for Australia.
Improving outlook
The trajectory for economic growth is looking good.
The December quarter was an improvement on the September quarter’s result of 0.3%, and 0.2% in the June quarter. That September quarter result turned out, as predicted,
to be a turning point.
We now seem to be on a pathway for continuing growth. The December quarter, remember, came before the Reserve Bank cut interest rates in February. Falling interest rates will benefit not only mortgage holders but also business borrowers.
Inflation has fallen to a level that gives optimism on possible future interest rate cuts.
Nevertheless, although the rate of inflation is falling, this does not mean prices are coming down. They are merely rising more slowly than before. The inflation number is also an average. Some goods or services have higher than average price rises, others lower. People tend to pay attention to the prices that rise, not those that stay the same or decline.
In short, these numbers may not make too much of a difference to the government’s election prospects. People will still be worried about the cost of living.
International events beyond our control
If voters pay attention to international politics, they also know our current economic sunshine might not last.
US President Donald Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, and doubled the tariff on Chinese imports from 10% to 20%. The affected countries are talking about retaliation.
Even if the US does not impose tariffs on Australian products (which remains a possibility, but Australian diplomats are lobbying hard to head it off), there is an impact from the US tariffs on China.
We rely on China as our major trading partner. If its economy slows, so will ours. China has responded to the threat of tariffs today with a fresh stimulus package.
Even more worrying is if the trade wars spread to other countries. Protectionism and insularity harms economies. Spread widely it can lead to a global recession.
Even though the December quarter national accounts show good signs of economic recovery and bode well for the future, international events beyond Australia’s control might yet derail our positive prospects.
Stephen Bartos 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 Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
What does an ideal world look like for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump? In a word: ugly.
Trump’s embrace of Russia’s dictator, his bullying of a weakened Ukraine, his musings about new US territorial conquests, and his dismantling of US democratic institutions would, in any other age, have resulted in his immediate removal from office.
And yet he has succeeded in beating his political opponents into submission, while his cultish following applauds every fresh outrage he visits on America’s friends, and every undeserved boon he grants its enemies.
American interests?
When discussing foreign policy, we typically use the term “national interests” to frame our understanding of what countries want, and the enablers and constraints that affect their chances of achieving it. Essentially, we to try to identify some parameters about what countries can, can’t, and might do.
It assumes that factors such as economic heft, military capability, natural resources, alliance networks and geopolitical position all create a kind of baseline unique to each nation. It also assumes a fair amount of continuity in foreign policy, as new governments invariably face the same kinds of challenges and opportunities as past ones.
And crucially, it assumes leaders will recognise it: that in democracies, for instance, elected public servants will continue acting in the broader public good.
Not so for Trump. His behaviour is far more reminiscent of Putin’s. Like the Russian autocrat he idolises, Trump’s main domestic and foreign agendas revolve around his personal fortune, cementing his political power, and creating a narrative that existential forces – as well as internal enemies – are to blame for America’s problems.
By presenting himself as the nation’s only possible saviour, Trump is directly plagiarising the Putin playbook.
Like Russia’s tsar in all but name, Trump is creating an image of the state in which regime security and national security are innately linked. In that way, America First and Trump First are not just compatible, but actually synonymous.
Trajectories of power
Where the two differ, though, is that Putin’s recipe for dominating Russian politics has tended to increase his country’s raw national power, rather than diminishing it.
Certainly, Putin’s renationalisation of Russia’s energy sector helped turn Russia into a petro-giant. That Putin has remained at the top of Russian politics for so long has been at least partly because he has distributed Russian wealth beyond a clique of oligarchs.
At the same time, Putin’s erosion of freedoms created powerful disincentives to express any opposition to his regime. After all, when criticising Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine can lead to beatings, ostracism from society, being sent to the front, or a prison sentence of up to 15 years, where’s the value in speaking out?
There are plenty of signs that Trump would like to emulate Putin’s progress. From installing loyalists in the military and the ostensibly independent Department of Justice and FBI, coupled with threats against freedom of the press, his subversion of US democracy looks eerily familiar.
But Trump’s recipe for success looks almost certain to weaken the US, not strengthen it.
He has surrounded himself with completely unqualified supplicants in key roles, chosen on the basis of loyalty rather than competence.
Purges at the CIA are weakening America’s vaunted intelligence-gathering capabilities. Orders to stop cyber operations against Russia are an extraordinary own-goal.
Trump’s punishment of partners via tariffs – along with continued suggestions about annexing Canada, and his belittling of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by calling him “governor” – are costing America friendships built on decades of trust.
These schisms are becoming evident across the Atlantic too. In France, for instance, even the far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen has criticised Trump’s standover tactics in suspending military aid to Ukraine. A recent French poll found that fully 73% of respondents believed Trump’s US was no longer an ally.
A new age of empires
The recent – and historically breathtaking – statement by Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, that Russian and US worldviews now largely align speaks volumes about the kind of world both regimes now agree on.
It is, put simply, a new Age of Empires. This has long been a central theme of Russian geopolitical propaganda: that all major decisions affecting the world should be taken in only three of its capitals: Moscow, Beijing and Washington.
In this brutal order, the strong do as they will, and the weak do as they must. It envisages a world cleaved into spheres of influence, with Russia permitted to run rampant over Eastern Europe, the US dominating the Americas and the East Pacific, and China as a hybrid maritime and continental power exerting hegemony in Asia.
So how worried should we be? When we think of past global dangers, events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis come to mind. This is, of course, not the same: there isn’t the potential imminence of nuclear war.
But there should nonetheless be not just deep concern but also immediate action to inoculate ourselves, as best we can, from the slow-burn effect of a world made safe for autocracy rather than democracy.
There is also a legitimate counterargument that Trump’s bark is worse than his bite; that he will be a lame duck after the mid-term elections in 2026; and that all US allies need do is to keep a low profile until then.
That may have been an appropriately soothing sentiment during Trump’s first term, but in his second one it rings increasingly hollow.
For one thing, the goalposts have shifted. Trump has shown he will act with near-total impunity. He will doubtless try to manipulate elections, and he has shown before that he is perfectly prepared to reject their outcomes. For another, this time he will have not just a pliant legislature and cabinet, but also a loyal bureaucracy, and key supporters in law enforcement and military posts.
Given that, it is one thing to hope for the best. But it makes sense also to plan for the worst. If the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is to be prepared for virtually daily episodes of disappointment. Or, to put it bluntly: things will get worse before they get better.
Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.
For millions of people in southeast Queensland and northern New South Wales, Cyclone Alfred will be their first experience living through a cyclone. Alfred is forecast to make landfall about 2am on Friday morning.
I am a disaster expert based in northern Queensland, which regularly experiences cyclones. In my other role as an acting SES public information officer, I’m heading south to the Gold Coast to help residents prepare and respond.
Here’s what I want you to know. First, don’t panic. Second, do prepare.
Preparation has several steps. It’s important to clearly assess your specific threat. If you live near the sea, storm surges – where the sea spills inland – could be a significant threat, while flooding might pose a large risk if you live near a river – especially in the few days after Alfred passes. The highest rainfall is likely on Alfred’s southern flank from the Gold Coast down to northern New South Wales.
Having enough food, water and medication is vital. Be ready to evacuate too, in case authorities deem it necessary. Check your local council’s disaster website, disaster apps and stay tuned to the ABC, which will run disaster alerts.
The Bureau of Meteorology’s latest update on Cyclone Alfred’s path and likely impact, as of the morning of Wed 5th March.
What should I do right now?
If you’re in the danger zone, make preparations now, before the full intensity of the cyclone arrives.
Tie down loose objects. Clean gutters to avoid overflow from torrential rain. And prepare your “go bag” – a bag of essentials you can throw in the car if authorities tell you to leave immediately. Don’t take too much – just the bare necessities.
Buy an AM/FM radio and tune it to ABC National, as you cannot be sure mobile networks will function. Radio is a reliable way to get good information from the ABC, Australia’s designated emergency channel.
Make sure the car is fuelled or charged. If you’ve got a generator, make sure you have fuel and the generator is positioned outside in a well-ventilated area. Water is often unreliable after disasters. Fill your bathtub or front-loader washing machine with water. Put containers of water in your freezer, to keep food cold if the power goes out and as another water source. Plan for days of power outages. Protect windows with plywood, heavy blankets or mattresses. Put a mattress between your car and garage roller door to stop it blowing in.
Turn off gas, electricity and solar power.
Authorities recommend using sandbags to reduce the chance of water getting in. You can get sacks from hardware stores or council-run emergency centres, if available, who also provide sand. You also need plastic sheeting.
If there’s a shortage of sand, you can use garden soil or commercial bagged soil. If you can’t get sacks, large plastic shopping bags will do.
Tape strong plastic sheeting around the door or low window where water might get in. This is the barrier that actually keeps water out – sandbags keep it in place.
Fill sandbags and lay them like bricks. Lay one row, and lay the next row offset for strength.
Sandbags are good, but they have limits. There’s little point in piling sandbags higher than about 30 centimetres. If floodwaters edge higher, water will get through.
Many people have had the unpleasant experience of having effluent come back up through toilets during cyclones and subsequent flooding. To stop this, cover your toilet with plastic sheeting (directly on the porcelain) and put a sandbag on top for weight. Do the same for any drains where water might flow back up.
To reduce water damage, put valuable or important items up high, atop tables or bunk beds or upstairs if you have a second storey.
When the cyclone first hits, it can be overwhelming. The sound is like a roaring jet engine.
If you haven’t been advised to evacuate by authorities, you will be sheltering in place.
This means finding the safest room in the house, to avoid damage from flying objects. Choose the smallest room with the fewest windows – a bathroom or a room under the stairs. Basements are very safe, but will be the first affected by water.
As the cyclone picks up intensity, set up inside this safe room with your pets and children. Do not leave this room until you have been told it’s safe by authorities.
At the centre of strong cyclones is the eye of the storm, which we experience as a period of sudden calm. People often make the mistake of thinking it’s over. But in fact, it’s just a brief reprieve before the intense winds pick up again. Don’t make the mistake of leaving the house – check with authoritative sources.
Cyclone Alfred is a slow-moving cyclone, which means you might be stuck inside for a while. Be prepared to be inside your house for up to 24 hours, even after the worst has passed. This is because there may well be downed powerlines with live electricity, broken glass, falling trees and so on.
For your children (and yourself), being in the cyclone is frightening. Young kids find the sound chilling. You can play music through headphones to help soothe them. Board games, books and puzzles can help pass the time. You will need distraction. Have a bucket in the corner for emergency toilet needs.
Keep track of the storm and any emerging dangers through your radio and internet-enabled phone (if still functioning).
What if I have to evacuate?
Authorities are working to set up evacuation centres for people whose homes may not be safe. Authorities will go door-to-door to tell affected residents to leave, as well as broadcasting the information on radio and online.
You’re more likely to have to evacuate if your house is on low-lying land near the sea, as a storm surge is likely. How much water is pushed ashore will depend on the tide, but it could be as high as 70cm above the high tide line if we’re unlucky.
Evacuations can happen after the cyclone too. Alfred is packing a lot of rain – up to a metre in some areas. That’s very likely to cause flooding, both flash floods and rivers breaking their banks.
If you are asked to evacuate, you can go to the house of a friend or family member if it’s on higher ground and outside the flood risk zones. Or you can go to a local evacuation centre – check your council website to see where your closest one is. Take as little as possible with you.
Many people who choose not to evacuate do so because they’re worried about their pets. This is risky. Some evacuation centres do take pets, so check now. If they don’t, look for other options with friends and family. Staying put after an evacuation order is dangerous.
What will happen after the cyclone?
Cyclone Alfred brings three threats: intense winds, high seas and heavy rain.
After the intense winds die down, the seas will be dangerous for days after Alfred. There are coastal hazard warnings for about 1,000km of coastline.
Cyclones also often decay into tropical low weather systems, which dump heavy rain for days. This is likely.
As you move into recovery phase, don’t relax your guard. In far north Queensland, 16 people have now died after being infected with melioidosis, a bacterium found in mud. The bug is more prevalent after heavy rainfall.
Wear protective gear such as gloves and face masks when dealing with water-damaged goods and mud, and pay close attention to the latest advice authorities are giving.
But remember – don’t panic. We will get through this.
Yetta Gurtner has received funding in the past from the Bureau of Meteorology. She is a community engagement officer with the Queensland State Emergency Services.
Tropical Cyclone Alfred is strengthening as it bears down on the coast of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, prompting fears it may become a destructive category 3 cyclone before it makes landfall.
As of Wednesday, the cyclone was a category 2 and had begun moving west towards land. It is forecast to maintain intensity on Thursday and cross the coast early on Friday morning, probably between Maroochydore and Coolangatta.
According to the Bureau of Meteorology, the possibility of the system reaching a low-end category 3 was a low risk but “cannot be ruled out”.
The bureau has issued warnings from Double Island Point in Queensland to Grafton in NSW. The area includes Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Byron Bay and Ballina.
Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner says modelling shows 20,000 properties in Brisbane could be affected by storm surge or flooding.
The intensifying cyclone is a major concern, and makes Cyclone Alfred an unusual phenomenon. Cyclones typically lose strength as they approach the coast – especially this far south. It means Alfred may cause extensive damage, including to inland areas. We can expect it to last well into Friday before petering out and heading south on Saturday.
What to expect in the next few days
From Wednesday afternoon and into Thursday, the bureau forecasts gales, with damaging wind gusts to 120km an hour, along the coast from southeast Queensland to northeast NSW.
From Thursday afternoon, destructive wind gusts of up to 155km an hour may develop around the coast and islands as Alfred’s “destructive core” approaches and crosses the coast, the bureau says.
If Alfred crosses the coast on Friday morning during high tide, it may cause a dangerous storm surge along the coast, especially in waterfront suburbs near and south of the cyclone’s centre. This may inundate low-lying areas, such as canal communities of the Gold Coast.
In Brisbane, peak storm surges are expected from Thursday onwards. Some 20,000 properties have been warned of impacts ranging from minor inundation in yards to significant flooding inside homes. Areas most at risk include Nudgee Beach, Brighton, Windsor, Ashgrove, Morningside and Rocklea.
Damaging surf may also cause serious erosion at open beaches between Sandy Cape and Grafton, and further south into NSW.
From Thursday, residents in southeastern Queensland and northeastern NSW have been told to expect heavy to intense rain. It may lead to life-threatening flash flooding – again, near and south of the cyclone centre.
Northern NSW has already been hit by devastating flooding in recent years, most recently in February 2022. Many of its settlements, including Lismore, are along or close to major river courses. Residents are understandably anxious about what the next few days may bring.
The bureau released the below map on Wednesday morning. It shows the bureau’s best estimate of the cyclone’s future movement and intensity.
The grey zone indicates the range of tracks the cyclone centre may follow. The bureau says winds will almost certainly extend to regions outside the rings on this map.
Cyclone Alfred tracking map released by the Bureau of Meteorology on Wednesday morning shows it circling of the coast of southeast Queensland. BoM
Why is Alfred so fired up?
Cyclone Alfred has been meandering off Queensland’s coast for almost two weeks. Unusually, it has maintained its cyclonic structure and intensity much further south than is typical.
Over the past two days, unique atmospheric and oceanic conditions have allowed Cyclone Alfred to intensify.
It moved towards an area of warmer coastal water (around 27°C), which caused it to strengthen. It also moved into an area of reduced “vertical wind shear” – a variation in wind speed running at right angles to prevailing winds, which often acts to weaken a cyclone.
Image showing high sea surface temperatures which are fuelling the cyclone. BoM
Usually, cyclones in this part of Australian waters may brush the coast, but are soon pulled south or east by an upper trough of cold air and then flicked away into the cooler waters of the Tasman Sea – to an area known as the “cyclone graveyard”.
The current situation is unusual because that upper trough is absent. At the same time, a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea is steering the cyclone towards the coast.
The big question now is whether Alfred reaches category 3 – that is, very destructive winds of 165–224km per hour.
Should the cyclone’s forward motion towards the coast slow, it raises the chances of becoming a category 3 storm. That’s because it would spend more time passing over the warm area of coastal water.
Category 3 winds are likely to cause significant structural damage to some buildings. Brisbane is, to some extent, sheltered from the winds by offshore islands. Other areas, such as the Gold Coast, do not have such protections.
How long will the cyclone last?
As I write, gales are starting to rake the coast – including where I live, on the Sunshine Coast. Conditions will continue to deteriorate this afternoon and into tonight.
The cyclone will bring gale-force winds to a large area of coastline – from Double Island Point in the north to potentially as far south as Coffs Harbour.
By Thursday afternoon, conditions on land and just offshore will be pretty rough. If the cyclone keeps travelling at a constant speed, it will cross the coast in the early hours of Friday morning.
This is less than ideal. It will be dark and people can’t see what’s going on. But there is much affected communities can do to prepare, as outlined here.
For cyclone preparedness and safety advice, go to Get Ready Queensland. For emergency assistance call the State Emergency Service (SES) in NSW or Queensland on 132 500.
A Bureau of Meteorology update on Cyclone Alfred dated March 5.
Steve Turton has previously received funding from the federal government.
It said the humanitarian catastrophe was continuing in Gaza and hampering journalists’ work on a daily basis.
The Israeli army had killed their colleagues and destroyed their homes and newsrooms, said RSF in a statement.
Gaza’s remaining journalists, who had survived 15 months of intensive bombardment, continued to face immense challenges despite the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that came into effect on 19 January 2025 with the first stage expiring last weekend.
Humanitarian aid, filtered by the Israeli authorities, is merely trickling into the blockaded territory, and Israel continues to deny entry access to foreign journalists, forbidding independent outlets from covering the aftermath of the war and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
Exiled Palestinian journalists are also prevented from returning to the Gaza Strip.
“We urgently call for the blockade that is suffocating the press in Gaza to be lifted,” said RSF editorial director Anne Bocandé.
“Reporters need multimedia and security equipment, internet and electricity.
“Foreign reporters need access to the territory, and exiled Palestinian journalists need to be able to return.
“While the ceasefire in Gaza has put an end to an unprecedented massacre of journalists, media infrastructure remains devastated.
“RSF continues to campaign for justice and provide all necessary support to these journalists, to defend a free, pluralist and independent press in Palestine.”
Reporters face the shock of a humanitarian catastrophe
Working amid the rubble
“The scale of the destruction is immense, terrifying,” said Islam al-Zaanoun of Palestine TV.
“Life seems to have disappeared. The streets have become open-air rubbish dumps. With no place to work, no internet or electricity, I was forced to stop working for several days.”
Journalists must also contend with a severe fuel shortage, making travel within the country difficult and expensive. Like the rest of Gaza’s population, reporters have to spend long hours in queues every day to obtain water and food.
Israeli fire despite the ceasefire
“Entire areas are unreachable,” Al Jazeera correspondent Hani al-Shaer told RSF.
“The situation remains dangerous. We came under Israeli fire in Rafah.”
The journalist explained that due to an unrelenting series of crises, he was forced to choose which stories he covered.
“The destroyed infrastructure? The humanitarian crisis? Abandoned orphans?” he wondered.
Witnesses and targets: the double trauma of reporters
With at least 180 media professionals killed by the Israeli army in the course of 15 months of war, including at least 42 killed on the job, according to RSF figures, surviving journalists must face their trauma while continuing their news mission.
Gaza media sources put the journalist death toll at more than 200.
“We covered this tragedy, but we were also part of it. Often, we were the target,” stressed Islam al-Zaanoun.
“We still can’t rest or sleep. We’re still terrified that the war will start again,” adds Hani al-Shaer.
The suspended lives of exiled journalists
From Egypt to Qatar, journalists who managed to escape the horror continue to live with the consequences, unable to return to their loved ones and homes.
“My greatest hope is to return home and see my loved ones again. But the border is closed and my house is destroyed, like those of most journalists,” lamented Ola al-Zaanoun, RSF Gaza correspondent, now based in Egypt.
The Gaza bureau chief of The New Arab, Diaa al-Kahlout is one of many who watched the Israeli Army destroy his house.
“When they arrested me, they bombed and set fire to my house and car. I’ve lost everything I’ve earned in my career as a journalist, and I’m starting all over again,” he told RSF.
A refugee in Doha, Qatar, he is still haunted by the abuse inflicted by Israeli forces during his month-long detention in December 2023, following his arbitrary arrest at his home in Beit Lahya, a city in the north of the Gaza Strip.
“No matter how many times I tell myself that I’m safe here, that I’m lucky enough to have my wife and children with me, I have trouble sleeping, working, making decisions,” confided the journalist, whose brother was killed in the war.
“I’m scared all the time,” he added.
Asia Pacific Media Network’s Pacific Media Watch project collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
It could be as little as roughly A$100. That was how much ABC News Verify recently spent to clone federal senator Jacqui Lambie’s voice – with her permission – using an easily accessible online platform.
This example highlights how artificial intelligence (AI) apps which create a synthetic replica of a person’s image and/or voice in the form of deepfakes or voice cloning are becoming cheaper and easier to use.
This poses a serious threat not only to the functioning of democracy (especially around elections), but also to a person’s identity.
Current copyright laws in Australia are inadequate when it comes to protecting people if their image or voice is digitally cloned without their permission. Establishing “personality rights” could help.
In theory copyright law can also protect a person’s image and voice. However, its application is more nuanced.
First, a person whose likeness has been cloned by an AI platform often does not own the source material. This material could be an image, video or voice recording which has been copied and uploaded. Even if your image and voice is depicted, if you are not the owner of the source material, you cannot sue for infringement.
Using Senator Lambie as an example, the ABC only needed 90 seconds of original voice recording to create the AI clone. Senator Lambie’s voice itself is not able to be copyright-protected. That’s because copyright can only attach to a tangible expression, say in written or recorded form. It cannot attach to speech or unexpressed ideas.
As the ABC arranged, recorded and produced the original 90-second recording, the broadcaster could hold copyright in it as a sound recording. It is a fixed, tangible expression of Senator Lambie’s voice. However, unless the senator and the ABC made an agreement, Senator Lambie would have no economic rights, such as the right to reproduction, to the original voice recording. Nor would she have any rights to the clone of her voice.
In fact, the AI-generated clone itself is unlikely to be protected by copyright, as it is considered authorless under Australian copyright law. Many AI-generated creations are currently unable to be protected under Australian copyright, due to a lack of original, identifiable human authorship.
Moral rights – including the right of attribution (to be credited as the performer), the right against false attribution and the right of integrity – are also limited in scope. They could apply to the original audio clip, but not to a deepfake.
What are ‘personality rights’?
In most jurisdictions in the United States, there exist what are commonly known as “personality rights”. These rights include the right of publicity, which acknowledges that an individual’s name, likeness, voice and other attributes are commercially valuable.
Celebrities such as Bette Midler and Johnny Carson have successfully exercised this right to prevent companies using elements of their identity for commercial purposes without permission.
One of the challenges is overlap with pre-existing laws, such as Australian consumer law and tort law. Policymakers might be hesitant to introduce a new right, as these other areas of the law may provide partial protection. Another challenge is how to enforce these rights if an AI-generated deepfake is created overseas.
Australia could also consider introducing a similar law to the “No Fakes Bill” currently being debated in the US. If passed, this bill would allow people to protect their image and voice through intellectual property rights. This should be given serious consideration in Australia too.
Deepfakes are becoming more and more common, and are now widespread during elections. Because of this, it’s important that Australians remain vigilant to them in the lead up to this year’s federal election.
And let’s hope that whoever wins that election takes urgent steps to better protect everyone’s image and voice.
Wellett Potter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If you head to the shops to buy bread, you’ll face a variety of different options.
But it can be hard to work out the difference between all the types on sale.
For instance, you might have a vague idea that wholemeal or wholegrain bread is healthy. But what’s the difference?
Here’s what we know and what this means for shoppers in Australia and New Zealand.
Let’s start with wholemeal bread
According to Australian and New Zealand food standards, wholemeal bread is made from flour containing all parts of the original grain (endosperm, germ and bran) in their original proportions.
Because it contains all parts of the grain, wholemeal bread is typically darker in colour and slightly more brown than white bread, which is made using only the endosperm.
Australian and New Zealand food standards define wholegrain bread as something that contains either the intact grain (for instance, visible grains) or is made from processed grains (flour) where all the parts of the grain are present in their original proportions.
That last part may sound familiar. That’s because wholegrain is an umbrella term that encompasses both bread made with intact grains and bread made with wholemeal flour. In other words, wholemeal bread is a type of wholegrain bread, just like an apple is a type of fruit.
Don’t be confused by labels such as “with added grains”, “grainy” or “multigrain”. Australian and New Zealand food standards don’t define these so manufacturers can legally add a small amount of intact grains to white bread to make the product appear healthier. This doesn’t necessarily make these products wholegrain breads.
So unless a product is specifically called wholegrain bread, wholemeal bread or indicates it “contains whole grain”, it is likely to be made from more refined ingredients.
Which one’s healthier?
So when thinking about which bread to choose, both wholemeal and wholegrain breads are rich in beneficial compounds including nutrients and fibre, more so than breads made from further-refined flour, such as white bread.
The presence of these compounds is what makes eating wholegrains (including wholemeal bread) beneficial for our overall health. Research has also shown eating wholegrains helps reduce the risk of common chronic diseases, such as heart disease.
The table below gives us a closer look at the nutritional composition of these breads, and shows some slight differences.
Wholegrain bread is slightly higher in fibre, protein, niacin (vitamin B3), iron, zinc, phosphorus and magnesium than wholemeal bread. But wholegrain bread is lower in carbohydrates, thiamin (vitamin B1) and folate (vitamin B9).
However the differences are relatively small when considering how these contribute to your overall dietary intake.
Which one should I buy?
Next time you’re shopping, look for a wholegrain bread (one made from wholemeal flour that has intact grains and seeds throughout) as your number one choice for fibre and protein, and to support overall health.
If you can’t find wholegrain bread, wholemeal bread comes in a very close second.
Wholegrain and wholemeal bread tend to cost the same, but both tend to be more expensive than white bread.
Margaret Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Manurewa Local Board is developing its first Pan-Pacific strategy in Aotearoa New Zealand to amplify Pasifika voices in local decision-making.
A recent community workshop brought leaders and residents together to develop a strategy that will help guide how the board engages with Pasifika communities. The plan will then be presented in June.
Akerei Maresala-Thomson, an Auckland Council partner and facilitator of the workshop at Manurewa Library, described it as a listening session.
“A lot of work has gone into reaching this stage, with investment from both past and present board members. This will be the first Pasifika strategy for the board-a win for our community.”
The strategy aims to amplify Pacific voices in local decision-making, promote cultural recognition, improve access to services, and encourage Pasifika participation in governance.
Maresala-Thomson facilitated a similar workshop in 2019, laying the groundwork for this initiative.
The strategy, expected to be presented in June, will be informed by feedback from the workshop and an online community survey.
According to the 2023 Census, Pasifika make up nearly 40 percent of Manurewa’s approximately 39,450 residents. The consultation process involved gathering demographic information and identifying key priorities for the community.
“There was a diverse mix of expertise and perspectives in the room,” said Maresala-Thomson. “Some smaller Pasifika communities weren’t represented, and our youth were largely absent.
Notes from the workshop will help shape the final draft of the Pan-Pacific strategy, set for presentation in June. Image: LDR/Mary Afemata
“However, many contributed via the online survey, which helped guide our discussions.”
The local board wants a Pan-Pacific approach — not just input from the larger island groups but representation from all the diverse Pacific communities, he said.
“More often than not, and this is no fault of our own, our Samoan, Cook Island, and Tongan communities naturally make up the larger share of our population.
“But they wanted to make sure we also reached our smaller community groups, like our Niuean, Tuvaluan, Solomon Islands, and even Rotuman communities.”
The group received great representation from the Tuvaluan, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Niuean communities, in addition to the larger, traditional networks from Samoan and Tongan communities, he said.
‘Great networking opportunity’ One attendee, Kate*, who asked not to be identified, said she joined the workshop to understand how local boards align with Pasifika priorities.
“It was a great networking opportunity, but ultimately, I wanted to know how I can best support the community,” she said. “The issues raised today aren’t new. We’ve been talking about them for years.”
Kate believes many Pasifika families struggle to engage with local government because they don’t see the impact of their input.
“There’s access to these spaces, but people don’t know where to go or why it matters. We need better ways to bring the conversation into people’s homes,” she said.
Engaging Pasifika youth was another key discussion point.
“There are youth in different spaces, and we need to find the champions — whether through youth councils, community groups, or other networks-who can help share the message among their peers.”
Community educator Kathleen Guttenbeil-Vatuvei . . . “When you hear ‘strategy,’ you want to be involved in shaping solutions.” Image: Facebook/TP/LDR
Kathleen Guttenbeil-Vatuvei, a community educator and financial mentor at Vaiola Pacific Island Budgeting Service Trust, said she attended the event to ensure financial capability was part of the discussion.
“When you hear ‘strategy,’ you want to be involved in shaping solutions,” she said. “What is the local board going to do about these issues? Are they listening? How do we fit into this strategy, and do we have a voice?”
She stressed the importance of youth involvement.
“Youth should be equally represented. But sometimes, they feel intimidated around elders or community leaders. It’s important to create spaces where they feel comfortable contributing.”
Angela Dalton, Councillor for Manurewa-Papakura and former chair of the local board, received a message from Maresala-Thomson thanking her for initiating the strategy years ago.
“I always felt we weren’t turning words into tangible outcomes for Pasifika,” Dalton said.
“I was determined to build strong relationships to ensure we deliver projects that meet the needs of our growing Pasifika population.”
Auckland Council partner and facilitator Akerei Maresala-Thomson . . . facilitating a discussion on strengthening the relationship between the Manurewa Local Board and Pasifika communities. Image: LDR/Mary Afemata
Feedback will shape final draft Feedback will shape the final draft of the strategy. A subcommittee will refine the document before it is presented to the Manurewa Local Board.
The goal is to align its implementation with the 2025-2026 Local Board Plan, ensuring Pasifika priorities are embedded in decision-making.
A steering committee will oversee the project, ensuring it reflects the aspirations of Manurewa’s Pasifika communities and fosters meaningful engagement with local government.
Maresala-Thomson said: “What we get from today, from your feedback, which has been amazing, this will help to draft the strategic plan specifically for Pacific and Manurewa.”
Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a community member of the LDR project.
After Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996, Australia made fundamental changes to its gun laws. The use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons became restricted and a national gun registry was established.
As a result, unlike the situation in the United States where automatic weapons can be readily obtained, mass shootings are a rarity in Australia.
However, a new and pressing danger in the form of 3D guns, or “ghost guns”, threatens to undermine Australia’s strict gun control laws.
The reason is simple: 3D guns can be manufactured in a suburban garage. In a process like making a dress from a pattern, a digital blueprint for the manufacture of a firearm can be downloaded from the internet. Then, instead of a sewing machine, you need a 3D printer or an electronic milling machine.
The emergence of these types of firearms reveal big loopholes in many of our gun laws. These need urgent attention.
How are these guns made?
A 3D gun is manufactured in stages, with each part of the gun printed separately and assembled manually.
Think of yourself as making a toy LEGO gun, but instead of taking the parts from the LEGO box, you make the parts on your 3D printer based on your digital blueprint and you then assemble your gun. Your raw materials are thermoplastic polymers and metal for the barrel and firing pin.
High-end, industrial-grade 3D printers are priced between $2,000 and $10,000, and are readily available.
This technology has been around for more than a decade.
The first 3D printed handgun was designed by Cody Wilson in 2013, which he christened The Liberator. It was made of 15 parts of plastic and a nail for the ring pin.
Also in 2013, reporters from the Daily Mail newspaper in London 3D-printed a Liberator pistol and smuggled the disassembled gun onto a Eurostar train. They reassembled the gun in the toilet.
As the gun was made of plastic, metal detectors were not activated, demonstrating the danger these weapons pose even in high-security locations such as airports and public transport.
In the recent high-profile murder in New York of Brian Thompson, chief executive of the US health insurance company United Healthcare, the suspect, Luigi Mangione, when arrested was found to be in possession of a similar 3D-printed gun and 3D-printed suppressor to those allegedly used in the shooting.
Leaps forward in technology
In the 12 years since the designs for The Liberator were posted on the internet, the quality and range of 3D guns have greatly improved and expanded.
According to Detective Inspector Brad Phelps from Queensland’s Crime and Intelligence Command Drug Squad, the technology has advanced sufficiently that:
now you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a privately manufactured firearm and a traditional firearm in many instances […] every jurisdiction in Australia has reported an increase, particularly in the last 18 months to two years.
As 3D guns are untraceable, the actual prevalence of 3D guns is unknown, other than the growing number of 3D guns seized in police raids. According to gun safety groups, 3D guns can now fire up to 40 rounds and use standard gauge ammunition.
Police predict homemade guns will soon overtake illicit weapon imports.
So, with all these alarm bells ringing in the ears of law enforcement agencies, what steps have authorities taken to meet the threat 3D guns pose to community safety?
Indeed, what effective steps are being taken to prevent further advances in the technology and thwart any efforts to produce these guns en masse?
The answer would appear to be that little attention has been directed towards the dangers 3D guns represent. Legislation across Australian jurisdictions is inconsistent.
At present, only New South Wales and Tasmania have legislated to make it an offence to possess a digital blueprint for the manufacture of a firearm on a 3D printer or electronic milling machine. The maximum penalties are imprisonment for 14 years and 21 years, respectively.
In 2022, WA took a step in the right direction by making unauthorised possession of firearms technology an offence. This included possession of a 3D printer or milling device.
The slow progress on this issue is well illustrated by South Australia. There have been 23 incidents in which police have seized 3D-printed firearms and firearm parts between 2020 and 2023.
But the drafting of proposed legal amendments to address these incidents started in 2024 and are still to be introduced into the SA parliament.
There needs to be a national sense of urgency similar to the federal government’s response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Existing laws are inadequate as there is no uniformity in the legislation covering 3D-printed firearms and their digital blueprints.
There was a senate inquiry into gun violence in 2014, which found 3D printers “were by no means integral to the illegal manufacture of firearms”. This is no longer accurate.
Ironically, the senate committee recommended “Australian governments investigate the requirement for uniform regulations in all jurisdictions covering the manufacture of 3D-printed firearms and firearm parts”. A decade on, little progress has been made.
New laws could distinguish between possessing of a digital blueprint for a 3D gun and actually manufacturing a firearm. This could look like a scale of penalties, such as those imposed for the possession and manufacture of illegal drugs, which are based on the category of drug and the quantity seized.
Andrew Hemming does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The aftermath of one of the most undiplomatic – and notorious – White House meetings in recent history reveals a changed world.
Having berated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for supposedly not wanting peace with Russia and failing to show sufficient gratitude to the United States, President Donald Trump has now paused all military aid to Ukraine.
This equates to about 40% of the beleaguered nation’s military support. If the gap is not quickly covered by other countries, Ukraine will be severely compromised in its defence against the Russian invasion.
This has happened while the Russian army is making slow but costly gains along the front in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s goal appears to be to force Zelensky to accept a deal he does not want, and which may be illegal under international law.
New Zealand is a long way from that front line, but the implications of Trump’s unilateral abandonment of Ukraine still create a serious foreign policy problem.
Aside from its unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s actions, New Zealand has provided Defence Force personnel for training, intelligence, logistics and liaison to the tune of nearly NZ$35 million. The government has also given an additional $32 million in humanitarian assistance.
At the same time, New Zealand has supported global legal efforts to hold Russia to account at both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. With Trump undermining these collective actions, New Zealand faces some stark choices.
Allies at war
While a genuine ceasefire and eventual peace in Ukraine are the right aims, Trump’s one-sided proposal has involved direct talks between Russia and the US, excluding all other parties, including the actual victims of Russian aggression.
With eery parallels to the Munich Agreement of 1938 between Nazi Germany, Britain, France and Italy, peace terms could be dictated to the innocent party. Ukraine may have to sacrifice part of its territory in the hope a wider peace prevails.
In exchange, Ukraine may be given some type of “security assurance”. But what that arrangement would look like, and what kind of peacekeeping force might be acceptable to Russia, remains unclear.
If the current UK and European ceasefire proposals fail, Europe could be pulled more directly into the conflict. Since the Trump rebuff, European leaders are embracing Zelenskyy more tightly, wary of an emboldened Russia threatening other states with substantial Russian populations such as in Estonia and Latvia.
European boots on the ground in Ukraine could escalate the existing war into a much larger and more dangerous conflict. The complexities of this new reality are now spilling over in the United Nations.
A fork in the road
While the Security Council finally agreed on a broad statement in favour of a lasting peace, just what that might look like has seen opposing resolutions in the General Assembly.
On February 18, 53 countries, including New Zealand, voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russian aggression and calling for the return of Ukrainian territory. The resolution passed, but the US, Russia, Belarus and North Korea voted against it.
The US then put up its own resolution calling for peace, without recognising Russian aggression or the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. New Zealand supported this, too.
Those two votes clearly signal a fork-in-the-road moment for New Zealand.
As well as the wider consequences and potential precedents of any Ukraine peace settlement for security in Europe and the Pacific region, there is the immediate problem of supporting Ukraine.
With the US and Europe – both traditional allies of New Zealand – now deeply divided, whatever path the government chooses will directly affect present and future security arrangements – including any possible “pillar two” membership of AUKUS.
Potentially complicating matters further, Trump’s civilian lieutenant Elon Musk has publicly advocated for the US leaving the UN and NATO. Whether or not that happens, the threat alone underscores the gravity of the current situation.
No option without risk
Ultimately, if Trump decides to force Zelensky to the negotiating table against his will, and Europe continues urging and supporting him to fight on, New Zealand will have to take sides. It cannot take both.
The National-led coalition government will either have to abandon the stance New Zealand has taken on the Russian invasion over the past three years, or wait for Europe’s response and align with efforts to support a rules-based international order.
The first option would mean stepping back from that traditional foreign policy position, cutting military support for Ukraine (and trusting the Trump process), and probably ending sanctions against Russia and diplomatic efforts for legal accountability.
The other path would mean spending more on military aid, and possibly deploying more defence personnel to help fill the gap Trump has created.
No option is without risk. But, on balance, the European approach to international affairs seems closer to New Zealand’s worldview than the one currently articulated by the Trump administration.
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.
For centuries, fire was one of the major fears for city-dwellers. Dense cities built largely of wood could – and did – burn. In 1666, a fire in a bakery went on to destroy two-thirds of the city of London, leaving 85% of residents homeless. In 1871, fire burned out huge areas of Chicago. In World War II, bombing raids by Allied forces largely destroyed cities such as Dresden in Germany and Tokyo in Japan.
The threat of large-scale urban fires drove authorities to spend more on urban firefighting and require buildings to use less flammable material. Fire alarms, fire engines and automatic sprinklers have done much to reduce the chance of uncontrolled spread.
But will our sense of safety endure in the age of climate change? In January, we saw swathes of Los Angeles burn – even in the northern winter. Driven by low humidity and high winds, numerous large fires encroached on the city, destroying outlying suburbs. Climate change made the fires worse, according to climate scientists.
Now we have new research on the question of whether climate change will make large city fires more likely. A research team from China, Singapore and Australia have gathered a decade’s worth of data on fires from almost 3,000 cities in 20 nations, home to one-fifth of the world’s population.
The researchers found for every 1°C increase in air temperature, outdoor fires (rubbish and landfill) increase 4.7% and vehicle fires 2.5%. If the world accelerates its burning of fossil fuels under a high emissions scenario compatible with a 4.3°C temperature rise by century’s end, outdoor fires in cities would soar 22% and vehicle fires 11%. But building fires are projected to actually fall 5%. Thankfully, this emissions scenario is now less likely.
To make these findings, the researchers aggregated the fire incident data from 2,847 cities located in 20 countries over the 2011–20 decade and analysed them to see how air temperature influences the frequency of three types of fires: outdoor, structural and vehicle. They found a strong correlation.
Of the 20 nations, New Zealand looks likely to have the highest increase in fires, soaring 140% over 2020 figures by 2100.
When we think of fires in a city, we usually think of structural fires – a building going up in flames.
The research suggests building fires would actually decrease 5% by 2100. This is unexpected, and might suggest uncertainty about this finding.
Interestingly, this research found the fewest structural fires occurred at air temperatures of 24°C, a temperature which humans find optimal. When it’s hotter or cooler than that, more buildings catch fire.
Why? It’s likely due to our behaviour. We spend more time indoors when it’s very cold or very hot outside, which the authors suggest could make us more likely to accidentally cause fires by using electrical appliances and fireplaces which have a fire risk.
By contrast, outdoor and vehicle fires do increase linearly as temperatures rise. Most vehicle fires come from an equipment or heat source failure, which are both likely to increase as temperatures rise. We are also more likely to have a car crash when it’s hotter, and vehicle fires often come after a crash.
Outdoor fires become more likely because heat dries out fuels and favours fire spread. Rubbish dumps can spontaneously catch fire when temperatures are too high – even underground. This happens because chemical reactions are accelerated in warmer temperatures, causing waste materials to heat up faster. If the extra heat isn’t dissipated, waste can become so hot that it catches fire on its own.
We should take these estimates with a grain of salt. This is because they project recent statistical patterns into an uncertain future, and draw on a data set not perfectly suited to the task. The data set stops in 2020, before the electric vehicle transition gathered speed. EVs have a different risk profile for accidental fires.
As the authors note, there are large barriers to getting a coherent understanding of fire risk. “Despite multiple efforts, we have been unsuccessful in obtaining fire data from Africa and South America,” they write.
Their estimates also relate to a high-emissions future which is hopefully becoming less likely, though the general pattern of the results are similar under less severe climate projections.
Most importantly, it’s not yet clear why temperature influences urban fires. This uncertainty raises questions over whether simple projections of current patterns into the future are realistic or appropriate.
Cities aflame?
Arguably the most important contribution of this new research is to show us that our cities are not inherently protected from fire.
For city authorities, this research points to the need to manage combustible materials, from piles of mulch to dry urban parks and even home gardens. Storage yards, rubbish dumps and recycling centres will also need to be managed.
Fire used to be a major concern for cities, and it could be again. Cities and fire are uneasy bedfellows, and climate change will worsen the situation.
David Bowman is an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and also receives funding from the New South Wales Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre, and Natural Hazards Research Australia.
Calum Cunningham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Bill Gates, cofounder of Microsoft, is one of the world’s richest men. He is also a highly controversial figure.
On one hand, he contributes to social, medical and environmental causes through his foundation, making grants worth more than US$77 billion ($A123 billion) from its inception to the end of 2023. On the other, he has confirmed associations with Jeffrey Epstein and was the subject of spurious COVID conspiracy theories.
Review: Source Code, My Beginnings – Bill Gates (Penguin)
He was accused by his late long-term friend and business partner Paul Allen, of canvassing ways to dilute Allen’s shares in Microsoft when the latter was undergoing treatment for lymphoma. Gates reportedly apologised to Allen, and they repaired their relationship, and were on good terms by the time Allen died.
Still, as a leader, his style has been characterised by some who worked with him in the 1980s and 1990s as bullying. (Gates’ spokesperson has denied he mistreated employees.)
Childhood
In Source Code, Gates sets out to tell his own story, and the story of the birth of the tech industry.
His parents were the children of hardworking strugglers. His father, Bill Senior, was educated as a lawyer on the GI bill; his mother, Mary, was, according to Gates, an innovative and engaged homemaker, who later shattered glass ceilings.
Born in 1955 Gates describes himself as the kind of kid his mother had to warn his preschool teachers about. He responded to not knowing how to fit in with other kids by becoming a class clown, and was pushed by his mother to relate to other adults.
He was introduced to mathematics by his maternal grandmother, a Christian Scientist and a card sharp. She played assiduously with her grandchildren. She did not believe in losing to them deliberately. Through cards, Gates learned two key lessons: that you can learn the mathematics of a problem, and that practising a skill will hone it.
His relationship with his father was loving and respectful, but his relationship with his mother was more fraught. She encouraged him, but he resented her expectation that he live up to social mores so much that peace had to be brokered by a family therapist.
The privilege of private school
Gates was sent to a private school for boys, and his stories about Lakeside School in Seattle are probably the most engaging segment of the book. It was at Lakeside that he learned to apply himself academically, after his class-clown act failed to impress. There, he also met Allen, who would become co-founder of Microsoft, and got his hands on his first computer.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, computer time was charged by the minute. Gates used lucky connections and his entreprenurial spirit to get a job coding, so he could do more of what he loved. This was how he clocked up 500 hours coding before he left high school, a mean feat even by today’s standards.
Gates describes a degree of freedom almost unimaginable in today’s regimented education system. He had access to the computer lab at all hours and was able to take an entire semester off to code.
He continued his elite education at Harvard. Eventually, he chose to major in applied mathematics, partly because it gave him some of the same freedom he had been accustomed to. He soon realised he was not the best at pure mathematics, as he had anticipated.
Gates again got early access to computers at Harvard. He used this access to build his first microprocessor software (“Micro-Soft”), with Allen, which he and Allen sold to a company called MITS in 1975.
He was sanctioned by Harvard for this project. Their computers were not supposed to be for commercial use. He was also bringing non-students into the lab.
At this point, aged 19, he decided to take a semester off to focus on his business.
But they stole my software!
In 1975 Gates went to work with MITS, the company that built the first desktop computer, where he expanded his software.
The first version of this software was literally stolen at a trade fair, reducing Microsoft’s profits and creating a rift between Gates and many of the hobbyists who were using this software
Gates believed that software should be paid for; many of the hobbyists believed software should be free and open source.
Gates describes the head of MITS, Ed Roberts, as loud and somewhat mercurial, an irony that is not lost as we read Gates’ letters to his friends and business partners, in whom he is frequently disappointed.
Eventually, the relationship with MITS broke down. MITS failed to meet the terms of its contract to promote and license Gates’s software.
The end of this contract left Gates free to sell his software to a range of companies, including Apple and Texas Instruments. A legal judgement confirmed MITS had not fulfilled its contract to Microsoft, and that Microsoft had full ownership of its software and the right to sell it. This judgement is probably the foundation of the for-profit software industry.
In early adulthood, Gates already showed little respect for other people and social norms. He describes subscribing to the ideology of the lone genius, being arrested for speeding (where the famous mugshot of him comes from), and even joyriding on parked bulldozers.
This section of the book is probably the least readable. It presents a limited account of an exciting time in computing. Steven Levy’s Hackers is a great alternative account.
The DNA of computer programs
The “source code” is the DNA of the computer programs we use. Gates’ book sets out the source code of Microsoft, as a company, and in many ways, of the tech industry as a business.
Gates created not just Microsoft, but arguably an entire industry: selling software. His book describes the unique set of personal characteristics that made him the right person for this (single minded focus, which Gates attributes to likely autism, and a willingness to ignore all other considerations to get the job done).
It also describes a lucky set of circumstances. Gates benefited from a legal education at his father’s knee, a family history of entrepreneurship, and early access to computers.
It isn’t clear why Gates has written this book now. If it is to rehabilitate his image, he makes a poor job of it. He describes a life of consistent privilege and only acknowledges this privilege at the end of the book, which rings hollow.
He displays a profound belief that he has been right in his interactions with others, going so far as to describe his relationship with Steve Jobs at Apple as “sometimes rivalrous, sometimes friendly”, even though Apple famously sued Microsoft over the rights to the windows style of user interface we are all used to today.
There is little acknowledgement in the book even of the regrets he has expressed elsewhere, for example over his treatment of Paul Allen. There is little to dilute the impression that Gates was ruthless, though perhaps a later memoir may document changes later in life.
A male-dominated industry
While Gates’ focus and drive were clearly fundamental to the growth of the tech industry, this book also exposes the DNA of some of the tech industry’s problems.
He describes his father as a feminist, but his mother’s social expectations were a source of irritation to him, and he barely mentions his two sisters. He got his first access to computers at an elite boys’ school – a school where, notably, his best friend protested the integration of the sister school for fear it would reduce academic standards.
This school, and later Harvard (then another male bastion), were the source of all early Microsoft employees, sowing the seeds of today’s male-dominated industry, with all its attendant problems.
Gates’ attitude to property underpins Microsoft’s aggressive business practices. He was clearly prepared to borrow what isn’t his (bulldozers, computer lab time), but he is incensed by the theft of his intellectual property. This attitude is evident in the long history of Microsoft litigation.
The company has been repeatedly prosecuted for antitrust behaviour and sued for copyright infringement. Conversely, it aggressively pursued those it believes to be infringing, including, famously, a 17-year-old entrepreneur, who was probably not unlike Gates himself.
Gates doesn’t draw these connections. He is largely uncritical of his own path, only occasionally admitting he treated someone poorly.
Ultimately, his book is a useful insight into the source code of the tech industry, but not always in the ways Gates likely anticipates.
Dana McKay has previously received funding from Google.
The garage is an important site in the founding myths of many entrepreneurial adventures. Before a company becomes successful, where it starts out is as important as the visionaries who invest in it. And in addition to the specific space of the garage, the surrounding urban environment is also important. What a city offers, and the way it is organized, both contribute to innovation.
This article is part of our series Our cities from yesterday to tomorrow. Urban life is going through many transformations, each with cultural, economic, social – and, in this election year, political – implications. To shed light on these diverse issues, The Conversation Canada is inviting researchers to discuss the current state of our cities.
Multiplicity of creative spaces
There are many spaces specifically designed to support entrepreneurship today, including incubators, accelerators and collaborative workspaces. In addition to providing a place to work, these spaces facilitate both networking with potential partners and access to business opportunities.
It is also interesting to note how these creative spaces have multiplied in most cities, sometimes with a specialization. They can be found in the fields of health, social innovation and digital technologies.
The Apple garage, located in Steve Jobs’s childhood home, was a meeting place for Apple’s founders. (Shutterstock)
Yet, as important as they may be for some players, these spaces are not the only factors that contribute to entrepreneurial success. Other places, sometimes unexpected, such as the fast food restaurant where Nvidia was born or the Californian saunas that have replaced luxury hotels for business meetings between investors and entrepreneurs, also contribute to the creation and development of new companies. Nor can the success of an entrepreneurial venture be explained by a single place.
That raises the question: what do we know about how cities, and the variety of places within them, affect the development of entrepreneurial capacity?
As a postdoctoral researcher at HEC Montréal (MOSAIC) and a professor of innovation management at the IAE Nantes University, respectively, we have explored this question as part of our research in innovation management, particularly in a recent piece of research.
The city, an ecosystem
Research has long focused on specific types of places. The aim is both to understand what happens there and to extract lessons that can be replicated elsewhere. Accessing a shared workspace offers entrepreneurs the opportunity to socialize. This was also the great promise of the American company WeWork: to be a member of a community.
Specific technologies or tools for prototyping can be found in a fab lab or a collaborative manufacturing workshop. Presenting your project to investors is easier from an incubator or accelerator. For example, by presenting a project at Y-Combinator in California, an accelerator renowned for supporting promising projects, entrepreneurs know they’ll get noticed by investors.
Similarly, it is easier to meet potential partners or pick up on the latest trends in a market or technologies by spending the evening in a trendy café or bar. Informal exchanges are easier there and these play a big role in the entrepreneurial dynamics of a territory.
WeWork shared office space in Two Summerlin, Nevada, USA. (Shutterstock)
And then, quite simply, where does the initial idea come from? As the American columnist and writer Steven Johnson shows through the examples of Gutenberg and Darwin, it is clear this often happens at odd times and in unusual places.
As a result, whether innovators are entrepreneurs, artists or scientists, it is unlikely that all the resources they require will be available to everyone, all the time, in one place.
As the American urban planner and sociologist Jane Jacobs so aptly put it, individuals experience the city. They do not got to a single place: they visit or pass by a variety of places, each of which, in its own way, can nurture the creativity and career of an entrepreneur. Our research reveals that it is above all the combination of a city’s places – their diversity of size, function, purpose and location – that produces entrepreneurial capacity.
Observing artists to better understand entrepreneurship
Let’s take the example of creators who produce projection mapping works in Montréal. Thanks to a six-month survey of 21 Montréal artists, we were able to show the heterogeneity of places they visited regularly throughout the process of creation and development.
Firstly, depending on the profile of individuals and their creative approach, the places they visit regularly are different, and sometimes distinctive. This is the case, for example, of an artist who benefits from a residency in a printing workshop to create a projection on fabrics. It is also the case of a designer who goes to a fab lab to experiment with sensors.
This suggests that there are specific trajectories for each individual, and therefore, no single path that leads to innovation.
The need for structuring places
Secondly, this observation suggests that the convergence around certain places does not owe to chance: multiple resources, sometimes crucial for recognition in a field, are mobilized there.
For example, many of the artists in our study regularly visited Montréal’s Society for Arts and Technology (SAT), a renowned meeting place that has helped the careers of many artists. The artists we met go there to take courses, attend shows, and meet musicians with whom they may eventually collaborate.
That’s how a venue’s reputation is built. As we have shown, this can become essential at a particular stage of the entrepreneur’s journey.
But before or after this stage, other places may be more beneficial.
In fact, depending on the phase of the innovation project, the types of places visited and their number vary greatly. So, since needs are different, the capacity to innovate depends on the places and possibilities that exist in a city. For example, Montréal’s diverse cultural offerings, with its artist-run centres and performance halls, strongly inspire projection mapping artists.
Workshops are obviously important places for experimentation and creation, but they are only used when a prototype or final work is being produced.
The territory of innovation
In a more global context, where there are many technological, societal and environmental challenges, innovations are necessary.
Ideas and entrepreneurs are essential to make innovation happen. Entrepreneurs need skills and financial resources. They need to be part of collectives and communities. But also, and perhaps even above all, they need to be in territories that offer a wide range of places where they can take advantage of complementary resources to carry out their projects.
The city as a whole, and on a smaller scale, its neighbourhoods, are the melting pot from which ideas circulate and mix, where projects mature and take shape. The urban morphology, which can be seen as a particular arrangement of places and transport or travel infrastructures, then becomes a new deciding factor in entrepreneurial capacity.
Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.
Caspar David Friedrich / The Conversation, CC BY-SA
In 218 BC, the Carthaginian general Hannibal crossed the Alps against the advice of his men, who claimed it was impossible. “Aut inveniam viam, aut faciam,” Hannibal is said to have replied: “I shall either find a way, or make one.”
Though apocryphal, Hannibal’s bold statement captures a trait much sought in the tech industry today: “high agency”. This means being able to positively influence yourself or the world around you.
Psychologists use a range of other terms to refer to this kind of trait — including perceived control, mastery, and efficacy. All of them boil down to being able to achieve the things you want, when you want.
Recognising agency
In the business world, the term high agency is used in much the same way as “disruptor”, “game-changer” and “self-starter” were before it. As you might expect from those comparisons, high agency is a catch-all phrase for people who see and take opportunities where others see roadblocks.
More than this, high agency describes a person who creates their own opportunities where there appear to be none.
High agency is beneficial in more than the professional sphere, however.
Research shows that feeling able to achieve important goals is a building block for motivation in most domains of life, including education, health and political action. This is because people who feel “in control” set higher goals, are more committed those goals, and exert greater effort to achieve those goals than people who feel “out of control”.
Agency differs by demographic, including factors such as age. Some research suggests people feel more in control of their life circumstances and outcomes in middle age than in old age.
Socioeconomic factors such as education, income and work history also play a role. Put simply, people who are “better off” feel more agentic.
Mental health seems to be both an outcome and a predictor of high agency. People who are less depressed feel more in control of their lives, and those who feel more in control are less depressed.
Rethinking agency
The concept of “high agency” is an amalgamation of, or an umbrella term for, a range of traits that psychologists have studied for decades. Related concepts include the prized “growth mindset” (the belief that one’s talents are developable rather than innate), “proactivity” (acting in advance of, rather than reacting to, situations), and the somewhat controversial “grit” (perseverance in the pursuit of long-term goals). Note, however, that some argue grit is just a rebranded version of the personality trait “conscientiousness”.
High agency, as the tech world sees it, appears to borrow from all these concepts, wrapped up in one convenient package. Agentic people are those who see possibility where others see barriers, take action rather than wait to be told what to do, and aren’t afraid to go after what they want.
These traits are also stereotypically associated with particular people in society: members of advantaged majority groups, such as men, those with high socioeconomic status, and white people.
In many ways, high-agency behaviour is an act of privilege. It involves trusting that others will react well to your efforts to try a new approach or disrupt the status quo.
The reality is that the way other people respond will depend at least in part on factors outside our control. This may be particularly true for less privileged people, who tend to see less opportunity to exert choice and influence the world due to the very real structural barriers they face. This means acting “high agency” may be a risk for some people: actions that see one person praised as a “game changer” could easily see another labelled a “troublemaker”.
Taken to an extreme, high agency could read as “alpha” – the kind of person who takes charge and is a natural leader. Alpha is a gendered term, most commonly applied with a suffix such as male, bro or dude.
The already male-dominated tech industry should be wary of baking gendered traits into personnel selection procedures. If high agency is understood to mean a certain type of person rather than just a type of personality, it could be a problem for equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Realising agency
Given the rising value of high agency in professional settings – not to mention its personal emotional and motivational benefits – you might wonder how people can become more agentic.
Many proponents of high agency emphasise its value for looking at the world in a different way. So too it might be valuable to look at high agency in a different way: not what makes an individual agentic, but what are the conditions that allow agency to thrive.
Research shows that certain types of environments set people up for success. Environments that allow people to thrive are those that meet three basic psychological needs.
The first is the need for autonomy: the ability to freely choose what we do and when we do it. The second is the need for competence: the feeling of being capable of performing desired actions. Finally, there is the need for relatedness: the feeling of being connected to others.
While high agency may seem like an innate personality trait, emerging research suggests the people around us may be a powerful source of personal agency. People who are better able to influence their own outcomes are often those who can turn to, or recruit, others to help them achieve those outcomes.
Paradoxically, this means that “high agency” might not (just) be a quality of you personally, but a quality of the people around you.
Katharine H. Greenaway 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.
Trump’s actions align with a worldview that emphasises material advantage over values and ideas – the interests of great and regional powers are considered to be the only ones that matter.
The heated exchange between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28 underscored the crumbling architecture and protocols of the international rules-based order in place since the second world war.
It appears the Trump administration may expect unilateral concessions from Ukraine to Russia for peace. This would likely include ceding significant territory to Russia.
Ukraine borders four EU and NATO-member countries: Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. This poses a serious security risk.
Europe’s foremost security challenge is to deter Russia from further offensive action on the continent.
European countries have a direct interest in stopping the war, because a continuing conflict presents a costly threat, draining resources in military and humanitarian aid.
European countries want to see an end to the war that leaves Ukraine a safe and sovereign nation state. For European countries, it is crucial that any political settlement effectively deters Russia from further incursions into Ukrainian or Eastern European territory.
Without deterrence measures in place, there is no guaranteed prevention of wider state-to-state conflict on the European continent in future.
On the one hand, Europe needs the US military and economic might. On the other hand, Europe has pressing security concerns that drive a divergence from the US in its position on Ukraine.
How far will Trump go with Russia?
A key question on European leaders’ minds is: will the NATO alliance hold if there is an incursion into NATO-member territory?
If the borders of Poland or a Baltic state are violated, NATO’s article 5 will be triggered. This article requires the collective defense by all NATO allies of any ally under attack.
This could mean the US is obliged to join a direct confrontation with Russia.
Would Trump actually commit US military support to a fight with Russia? Or would the US abandon their NATO treaty obligations?
In terms of defence, strategic autonomy means Europe taking more responsibility for its own security. Former European Defence Agency chief Jorge Domecq notes this includes having the ability to “develop, operate, modify and maintain the full spectrum of defence capabilities”.
Effective deterrence of further Russian aggression on the continent requires providing substantive security guarantees to Ukraine. This may include a multilateral security structure for European countries (without the US) that could guarantee Ukraine’s security.
The idea of a European Army has also reemerged. This would go beyond defence cooperation to full military and strategic integration. Such an entity could underpin a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
At a summit in London on March 2, EU countries and the UK proposed a one-month truce that could be followed by European troops on the ground in Ukraine to maintain the peace.
What does Ukraine want from Europe?
A Gallup survey in late 2024 suggests the percentage of Ukrainians who want a negotiated end to the war has increased from about 20% in early 2022 to more than 50% in late 2024.
Over the same period, those who favour fighting for a military solution has declined from more than 70% to just under 40%.
The same survey revealed most Ukrainians prefer a key role for the EU in negotiations (70%) and the UK (63%), with less than half preferring a significant role from Trump.
Interestingly, more than 40% supported a central role for Turkey in negotiations.
China: a country to watch
China’s approach to Russia and the war could have an impact on Europe’s security and political stability.
China is mostly concerned with domestic economic growth and regime stability, and it has not directly involved itself in the war in Ukraine.
However, China is a close friend of Russia and a security ally of North Korea, which is currently fighting in the Kursk province of Russia against Ukrainian forces.
In 2023, China put forward its own “peace plan” proposal for Ukraine.
A rapprochement between the US and Russia may be viewed unfavourably by China which could see this as a threat to its own regional geopolitical influence.
China maintains significant influence over Russian President Vladimir Putin due to economic and security ties.
If China senses a fundamental shift in the international order, it may become more assertive in attempting to influence Russia and the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.
Jessica Genauer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Our circadian rhythm – that internal biological clock – requires our internal body temperature to drop at night for quality sleep. The ideal room temperature for sleep is 15°C to 19°C.
Rising outdoor temperatures make this body temperature increasingly difficult to maintain, especially for those without air conditioning. Paradoxically, widespread air conditioning use further contributes to climate change by using fossil-energy, which creates emissions.**
Research shows the impact on our sleep is already measurable. Our 2023 study of 375 Australian adults found people lost 12 minutes per night on the hottest nights compared with the coldest (31°C vs 0.4°C overnight temperatures across the year).
Globally, scientists predict we could lose 50–58 hours of sleep annually per person by the end of the century if warming continues unchecked. This is one way climate change will make geographic inequalities worse.
Rising temperatures make it increasingly difficult to maintain your body’s circadian rhythm, especially for those without air conditioning. Antoniodiaz
2. Climate change is worsening air pollution
Hot and dry conditions typically tend to make air pollution worse. As climate change increases the number of hot days and frequency of heatwaves, the rate of wildfires will increase. This adds another source of air pollution, increasing emissions of harmful greenhouse gases and airborne particles.
Air pollution is linked with poorer health, increased risk of chronic illness and early death.
Air pollution also impacts our sleep through breathing issues, inflammation and potentially disrupting our nervous system’s ability to regulate sleep.
With these extreme events comes widespread upheaval in affected communities. From mass population displacement to loss of shelter, security and essential resources, sleep is likely way down the list of priorities when dealing with natural disasters.
However, sleep disturbances are common after these extreme events. A review of global research on wildfire survivors found two-thirds experienced insomnia and more than a third reported nightmares. These effects persisted up to 10 months after the disaster.
Two-thirds of wildfire survivors experienced insomnia and over a third reported nightmares. Toa55/Shutterstock
Research confirms these climate concerns are linked with sleep disturbances including difficulty falling asleep, insomnia and wakefulness. They occur across the age spectrum, affecting both younger and older adults.
If climate-related concerns or ongoing poor sleep are significantly impacting your life consider consulting a doctor or psychologist.
Tips for getting a good night sleep during hot nights
Fortunately, there are a few simple things you can do to improve your chances of getting a good night’s sleep. They cost nothing or very little and require just a small bit of pre-bedtime planning.
· sleep in the coolest room in the house (this may not be the bedroom)
· keep curtains closed during the day to limit heating from sunlight
· put on a fan – air flow can lower your perception of the temperature (by helping sweat evaporate faster) without actually cooling your room
· select light, breathable bedding (natural fibres work best)
· if outside temperatures drop at night, open the windows to encourage air circulation.
For your body:
· take a cool shower before bed to help lower body temperature
· timing your exercise is important: aim to exercise early in the day
· wear light natural-fibre clothing
· keep a damp towel or spray bottle by your bed to dampen your skin
· stay hydrated but avoid heavy meals before sleeping.
As we adapt to a changing climate, getting a good night’s sleep should be a top priority for our health.
With some practical adjustments to our environments and habits, we can adapt to these changes while advocating for the broader climate solutions that will ultimately help us all rest easier.
Ty Ferguson receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council
Carol Maher receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Heart Foundation, the SA Department for Education, Preventive Health SA, the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation, the South Australian Office for Sport, Recreation and Racing, Healthway, Hunter New England Local Health District, and the Central Adelaide Local Health Network.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union for voice actors and creatives, recently circulated a video of voice actor Thomas G. Burt describing the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on his livelihood.
Voice actors have been hit hard by GenAI, particularly those working in the video game sector. Many are contract workers without ongoing employment, and for some game companies already feeling the squeeze, supplementing voice-acting work with GenAI is just too tempting.
Audio work – whether music, sound design or voice acting – already lacks strong protections. Recent research from my colleagues and I on the use of GenAI and automation in producing music for Australian video games reveals a messy picture.
Facing the crunch
A need for greater productivity, increased turnarounds, and budget restraints in the Australian games sector is incentivising the accelerated uptake of automation.
The games sector is already susceptible to “crunch”, or unpaid overtime, to reach a deadline. This crunch demands faster workflows, increasing automation and the adoption of GenAI throughout the sector.
The Australian games industry is also experiencing a period of significant contraction, with many workers facing layoffs. This has constrained resources and increased the prevalence of crunch, which may increase reliance on automation at the expense of re-skilling the workforce.
One participant told us:
the fear that I have going forward for a lot of creative forms is I feel like this is going to be the fast fashion of art and of text.
Mixed emotions and fair compensation
Workers in the Australian games industry have mixed feelings about the impact of GenAI, ranging from hopeful to scared.
Audio workers are generally more pessimistic than non-audio games professionals. Many see GenAI as extractive and potentially exploitative. When asked how they see the future of the sector, one participant responded:
I would say negative, and the general feeling being probably fear and anxiety, specifically around job security.
Others noted it will increase productivity and efficiency:
[when] synthesisers started being made, people were like, ‘oh, it’s going to replace musicians. It’s going to take jobs away’. And maybe it did, but like, it also opened up this whole other world of possibilities for people to be creative.
Regardless, most participants expressed concerns about whether a GenAI model was ethically trained and whether licensing can be properly remunerated, concerns echoed by the union.
Those we spoke with believed the authors of any material used to train AI data-sets should be fairly compensated and/or credited.
An “opt-in” licensing model has been proposed by unions as a compromise. This states a creators’ data should only be used for training GenAI under an opt-in basis, and the use of content to train generative AI models should be subject to consent and compensation.
Taboos, confusion and loss of community
Some audio professionals interested in working with GenAI do not feel like they can speak openly about the subject, as it is seen as taboo:
There’s like this feeling of dread and despair, just completely swirling around our entire creative field of people. And it doesn’t need to be like that. We just need to have the right discussions, and we can’t have the right discussions if everyone’s hair is on fire.
Several participants expressed concerns the prevalence of GenAI may reduce collaboration across the sector. They feared this could result in an erosion of professional community, as well as potential loss of institutional knowledge and specific creative skills:
I really like working with people […] And handing that over to a machine, like, I can’t be friends with the machine […] I want to work with someone who’s going to come in and completely shake up the way, you know, our project works.
The Australian games sector is reliant on a highly networked but often precarious set of workers, who move between projects based on need and demand for certain skills.
The ability to replace such skills with automation may lead to siloing and a deterioration of greater professional collaboration.
But there are benefits to be had
Many workers in the games audio sector see automation as helpful in terms
of administration, ideation, workshopping, programming and as an educational tool:
In terms of automation, I see it as, like, utilities. For example, being a developer, I write scripts. So, if I’m doing something and it’s gonna take me a long time, I’ll automate it by writing a script.
Over half of participants said AI and automation allows more time for creativity, as workers can automate the more tedious elements of their workflow:
I suffer like anyone else from writer’s block […] If you can give me a piece of software that is trained off me, that I could say, ‘I need something that’s in my house style, make me something’, and a piece of software could spit back at me a piece of music that sounds like me that I could go, ‘oh, that’s exactly it’, I would do it. That would save me an incalculable amount of time.
Many professionals who would prefer not to use AI said they would consider using it in the face of time or budget constraints. Others stated GenAI allows teams and individuals to deliver more work than they would without it:
Especially with deadlines always being as short as they are, I think a lot of automation can help to focus on the more creative and decision-based aspects.
Many workers within the digital audio space are already working hard to create ethical alternatives to AI theft.
Although GenAI may be here to stay, a balance between the efficiencies provided should not come at the cost of creative professions.
Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust. Dr Whiting received funding from APRA/AMCOS and Creative Australia for the project discussed in this piece.
Extending the length of the parliamentary term is one of those recurring issues in New Zealand politics, emerging from the constitutional shadows every 30 years or so and quickly retreating from the bright light of scrutiny.
Because of the constitutional protection of the parliamentary term, and if the bill becomes law, an extension would require a public referendum with the 2026 general election (or the support of 75% of all MPs, a route the government will not take).
The standard maximum term of parliament would remain three years. But a prime minister would have the option at the start of a new parliamentary term of advising the governor-general it would be extended to four years.
This could only happen if the allocation of places on select committees reflected the distribution of non-executive MPs across all parliamentary parties. Theoretically, this would be a check on executive power.
But while the coming debate will be framed as one about parliament, the real issue is whether voters wish to extend the length of time governments spend in office. This is a crucial distinction.
Lack of checks and balances
New Zealand voters do not directly elect the executive branch. Rather, the government is formed by the party or parties able to command a majority of MPs following each election.
In short, we elect parliaments, which then provide governments. The length of one is connected to that of the other – meaning elections are one of the few ways New Zealanders can hold their governments to account.
Perhaps for this reason, voters have consistently supported a three-year term, despite historical attempts by earlier governments to extend it. Two previous referendums, in 1967 and 1990, maintained the status quo.
This does make New Zealand something of an outlier internationally. Of 190 lower houses and unicameral national legislatures around the world, only nine have terms of three years or less. The vast majority have terms of four or five years.
But New Zealand also lacks the checks and balances found in many of those other countries: a codified constitution, a Supreme Court responsible for policing it, and an upper legislative chamber.
Consequently, the frequency with which governments are held accountable to the people really does matter.
An ‘executive paradise’
This absence of the sorts of constitutional guardrails common elsewhere is what led former prime minister and constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Palmer to call New Zealand an “executive paradise”.
Former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer. Getty Images
The introduction of a four-year parliamentary term would do little to alter that, despite the argument it would improve the quality of parliamentary law and the standard of public policy-making.
A three-year cycle, it is often claimed, forces governments to spend their first year in office removing as many traces of the previous administration as possible, the second consolidating its own policy agenda, and the third campaigning for the next election.
A four-year term, the logic goes, would give ministers more time to learn the intricacies of their portfolios and develop policy expertise. It would allow for longer parliamentary deliberation on complex legislation, and ensure parliament properly scrutinises government policies, budgets and performance.
All things being equal, a longer parliamentary term could improve governance and create a more stable, durable policy mix. But, of course, all things are rarely equal.
Missing provisions
In and of itself, a longer parliamentary term is unlikely to produce the benefits its proponents promise. Improved policy-making requires resources as well as more time, including policy and procedural expertise, judgement and institutional wisdom.
It would be especially important to ensure a longer term went hand in hand with more effective parliamentary scrutiny of government activity, both its forecasts and actual results.
As a 2019 report from the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies suggested, investment in MPs’ policy expertise, systematic work plans for select committees and changes to parliament’s Standing Orders are also needed to improve the legislative process.
But these do not feature in the draft legislation. And without them, an extended parliamentary term would simply tip the balance even further towards the executive branch and away from the legislature.
Democratic accountability
There are other important issues the draft legislation doesn’t address, including the implications of making a four-year term discretionary, and what might prevent a government from ignoring irksome select committee recommendations (as can and does presently occur).
Worryingly, too, advice from the Ministry of Justice to the justice minister points out that parts of the proposed legislation are “constitutionally and practically problematic”.
The inevitable uncertainty at the start of every new parliament would “undermine democratic accountability” and “risks undermining the legitimacy of parliament and its exercise of public decision-making powers”.
The advice also says the legislation is “out of step with other long-standing legal and constitutional principles, including that it appears to encroach on the House of Representatives’ right to control its own operations”. In our constitutional tradition it is not for the executive to determine how parliament functions. A king’s head once rolled over this issue.
The proposed legislation starkly illustrates the tensions that can emerge when constitutional arrangements blur the boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, enabling the former to dictate terms to the latter.
Without other changes – an increase in the size of the House relative to the executive, say, or restrictions on the power of the prime minister to call early elections – the variable parliamentary term promised by the bill will inject more uncertainty into public life, not less.
And it will not improve the quality of our laws. It will simply extend the length of time government ministers get to spend in paradise.
Richard Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Green Party has called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to rule out Aotearoa New Zealand joining the AUKUS military technical pact in any capacity following the row over Ukraine in the White House over the weekend.
President Donald Trump’s “appalling treatment” of his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a “clear warning that we must avoid AUKUS at all costs”, said Green Party foreign affairs and Pacific issues spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.
“Aotearoa must stand on an independent and principled approach to foreign affairs and use that as a platform to promote peace.”
US President Donald Trump has paused all military aid for Ukraine after the “disastrous” Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy in another unpopular foreign affairs move that has been widely condemned by European leaders.
Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine’s Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that Trump appeared to be trying to push Kyiv to capitulate on Russia’s terms.
He was quoted as saying that the aid pause was worse than the 1938 Munich Agreement that allowed Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
‘Danger of Trump leadership’ Tuiono, who is the Green Party’s first tagata moana MP, said: “What we saw in the White House at the weekend laid bare the volatility and danger of the Trump leadership — nothing good can come from deepening our links to this administration.
“Christopher Luxon should read the room and rule out joining any part of the AUKUS framework.”
Tuiono said New Zealand should steer clear of AUKUS regardless of who was in the White House “but Trump’s transactional and hyper-aggressive foreign policy makes the case to stay out stronger than ever”.
“Our country must not join a campaign that is escalating tensions in the Pacific and talking up the prospects of a war which the people of our region firmly oppose.
“Advocating for, and working towards, peaceful solutions to the world’s conflicts must be an absolute priority for our country,” Tuiono said.
Five Eyes network ‘out of control’ Meanwhile, in the 1News weekly television current affairs programme Q&A, former Prime Minister Helen Clark challenged New Zealand’s continued involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence network, describing it as “out of control”.
Her comments reflected growing concern by traditional allies and partners of the US over President Trump’s handling of long-standing relationships.
Clark said the Five Eyes had strayed beyond its original brief of being merely a coordinating group for intelligence agencies in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
“There’s been some talk in the media that Trump might want to evict Canada from it . . . Please could we follow?” she said.
“I mean, really, the problem with Five Eyes now has become a basis for policy positioning on all sorts of things.
“And to see it now as the basis for joint statements, finance minister meetings, this has got a bit out of control.”
