George Orwell had a traumatic relationship with the sea. In August 1947, while he was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) on the island of Jura in the Scottish Hebrides, he went on a fishing trip with his young son, nephew and niece.
Having misread the tidal schedules, on the way back Orwell mistakenly piloted the boat into rough swells. He was pulled into the fringe of the Corryvreckan whirlpool off the coasts of Jura and Scarba. The boat capsized and Orwell and his relatives were thrown overboard.
It was a close call – a fact recorded with characteristic detachment by Orwell in his diary that same evening: “On return journey today ran into the whirlpool & were all nearly drowned.” Though he seems to have taken the experience in his stride, this may have been a trauma response: detachment ensures the ability to persist after a near-death experience.
We don’t know for sure if Nineteen Eighty-Four was influenced by the Corryvreckan incident. But it’s clear that the novel was written by a man fixated on water’s terrifying power.
This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.
Nineteen Eighty-Four isn’t typically associated with fear of death by water. Yet it’s filled with references to sinking ships, drowning people and the dread of oceanic engulfment. Fear of drowning is a torment that social dissidents might face in Room 101, the torture chamber to which all revolutionaries are sent in the appropriately named totalitarian state of Oceania.
An early sequence in the novel describes a helicopter attack on a ship full of refugees, who are bombed as they fall into the sea. The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, has a recurring nightmare in which he dreams of his long-lost mother and sister trapped “in the saloon of a sinking ship, looking up at him through the darkening water”.
The sight of them “drowning deeper every minute” takes Winston back to a culminating moment in his childhood when he stole chocolate from his mother’s hand, possibly condemning his sister to starvation. These watery graves imply that Winston is drowning in guilt.
The “wateriness” of Nineteen Eighty-Four may have another interesting historical source. In his essay My Country Right or Left (1940), Orwell recalls that when he had just become a teenager he read about the “atrocity stories” of the first world war.
Orwell states in this same essay that “nothing in the whole war moved [him] so deeply as the loss of the Titanic had done a few years earlier”, in 1912. What upset Orwell most about the Titanic disaster was that in its final moments it “suddenly up-ended and sank bow foremost, so that the people clinging to the stern were lifted no less than 300 feet into the air before they plunged into the abyss”.
Sinking ships and dying civilisations
Orwell never forgot this image. Something similar to it appears in his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) where the idea of a sinking passenger liner evokes the collapse of modern civilisation, just as the Titanic disaster evoked the end of Edwardian industrial confidence two decades beforehand.
The Titanic disaster had a profound impact on Orwell. Wiki Commons
References to sinking ships and drowning people appear at key moments in many other works by Orwell, too. But did the full impact of the Titanic surface in Nineteen Eighty-Four?
Sinking ships were part of Orwell’s descriptive toolkit. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel driven by memories of unsympathetic water, they convey nightmares. Filled with references to water and liquidity, it’s one of the most aqueous novels Orwell produced, relying for many of its most shocking episodes on imagery of desperate people drowning or facing imminent death on sinking sea craft.
The thought of trapped passengers descending into the depths survives in Winston’s traumatic memories of his mother and sister, who, in the logic of his dreams, are alive inside a sinking ship’s saloon.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
There’s no way to prove that the Nineteen Eighty-Four is “about” the Titanic disaster, but in the novel, and indeed in Orwell’s wider body of work, there are too many tantalising hints to let the matter rest.
Thinking about fear of death by water takes us into Orwell’s terrors just as it takes us into Winston’s, allowing readers to see the frightened boy inside the adult man and, indeed, inside the author who dreamed up one of the 20th century’s most famous nightmares.
Beyond the canon
As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Nathan Waddell’s suggestion:
As soon as the news broke of the Titanic’s sinking, literary works of all shapes and sizes started to appear in tribute to the disaster and its victims. As the century went on, and as research into the tragedy developed (particularly after the ships wreckage was discovered in 1985), more nuanced literary responses to the sinking became possible.
One such response is Beryl Bainbridge’s Whitbread-prize-winning novel Every Man for Himself (1996). It reimagines the disaster from the first-person perspective of an imaginary character, Morgan, the fictional nephew of the historically real financier J. P. Morgan (who was due to sail on the Titanic but changed plans before it sailed).
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Nathan Waddell 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.
Humanitarian needs are rising around the world. At the same time, major donors such as the US and the UK are pulling back support, placing increasing strain on already overstretched aid systems.
Global humanitarian needs have quadrupled since 2015, driven by new conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. Added to these are protracted crises in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and DR Congo, among others. Yet donor funding has failed to keep pace, covering less than half of the requested US$50 billion in 2024, leaving millions without assistance.
As funding shortfalls widen, humanitarian agencies increasingly face tough choices: reducing the scale of operations, pausing essential services, or cancelling programmes altogether. Disruptions to aid delivery have become a routine feature of humanitarian operations.
Yet few rigorous studies have provided hard evidence of the consequences for affected populations.
A recent study from one of the world’s largest refugee camps in Kenya fills this gap.
Our research team from the University of Oxford and the University of Antwerp was already studying Kakuma camp and then had an opportunity to see what happened when aid was cut. We observed the impact of a 20% aid cut that occurred in 2023.
The study reveals that cuts to humanitarian assistance had dramatic impacts on hunger and psychological distress, with cascading effects on local credit systems and prices of goods.
Kakuma refugee camp
Kakuma is home to more than 300,000 refugees, who mostly came from South Sudan (49%), Somalia (16%), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (10%). They have been housed here since 1992. With widespread poverty, lack of income opportunities, and aid making up over 90% of household income, survival in the camp hinges on humanitarian support from UN organisations.
When the research began in late 2022, most refugees in Kakuma received a combination of in-kind and cash transfers from the World Food Programme. Transfers were worth US$17 per person per month, barely enough to cover the bare essentials: food, firewood and medicine.
Over the span of a year, the research team tracked 622 South Sudanese refugee households, interviewing them monthly to monitor how their living conditions evolved in response to the timing and level of aid they received. We also gathered weekly price data on 70 essential goods and conducted more than 250 in-depth interviews with refugees, shopkeepers, and humanitarian staff to understand the broader impacts.
Then came the cut. In July 2023, assistance was reduced by 20%, just as the research team was conducting its eighth round of data collection. This sudden reduction in humanitarian aid created a rare opportunity to assess the effects of an aid cut on both recipients and the markets they depend on.
Consequences of aid cut
The 20% cut in humanitarian aid had cascading effects, affecting not just hunger, but local credit systems, prices, and well-being.
1. Hunger got worse. As a Somali refugee interviewed by the researchers put it: “After the aid reduction, the lives of refugees become hard. That was the money sustaining them. […] Things are insufficient, and hunger is visible.”
Food insecurity was already widespread before the cut, with more than 90% of refugees classified as food insecure. Average caloric intake stood below 1,900 kcal per person per day – well under the World Food Programme’s 2,100 kcal target and about half the average daily calorie supply available to a US citizen.
Food insecurity further increased following the aid cut, with caloric intake falling by 145 kcal, a 7% decrease. The share of households eating one meal or less increased by 8 percentage points, from about 29% to 37%. At the same time, dietary diversity narrowed, indicating that households tried to mitigate the negative impacts of the aid cut by reducing the variety of foods they consumed.
2. Credit collapsed. As a refugee shopkeeper of Ethiopian origin reported: “When we give out credit we have a limit; since the aid is reduced, the credit is also reduced.”
Cash assistance in Kakuma is delivered through aid cards, which refugees routinely use as collateral to access food on credit. When transfers are delayed or unexpected expenses arise, refugees hand over their aid cards as a guarantee to trusted shopkeepers, allowing them to borrow food against next month’s aid.
But when assistance was cut, the value of this informal collateral plummeted. Retailers, fearing default, reduced lending or refused lending altogether. Informal credit from shopkeepers shrank by 9%. Many refugees reported being refused food on credit or having to repay past debt before receiving any new goods.
3. Households liquidated assets. With no access to credit, households began selling off possessions and drawing down food reserves. The average value of household assets fell by over 6% after the aid cut.
4. Psychological distress increased. The aid cut reduced self-reported sleep quality and happiness, indicating that reductions in aid go beyond physical impacts and also have psychological effects.
5. Prices fell. With reduced expenditure and purchasing power, the demand for food dropped, and food prices went down, partially offsetting the negative effects of the aid cut.
First, aid in contexts like Kakuma should not be treated as optional or discretionary, but as a structural necessity. It is the backbone of daily life. Mechanisms are needed to protect it from abrupt donor withdrawals.
Second, informal credit is not peripheral, it is central to economic life in refugee settings. In many camps, shopkeepers act as retailers and de facto financial institutions. When aid transfers serve as both income and collateral, cutting them risks collapsing this fragile credit system. Cash transfer programmes must therefore be designed with these dynamics in mind.
Olivier Sterck receives research funding from the IKEA Foundation, the World Bank, and The Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).
Vittorio Bruni is affiliated with Oxford University
While there has been substantial research on methods for keeping AI from causing harm by avoiding such damaging statements – called AI alignment – this incident is particularly alarming because it shows how those same techniques can be deliberately abused to produce misleading or ideologically motivated content.
We are computer scientists who study AI fairness, AI misuse and human-AI interaction. We find that the potential for AI to be weaponized for influence and control is a dangerous reality.
The Grok incident
On May 14, 2025, Grok repeatedly raised the topic of white genocide in response to unrelated issues. In its replies to posts on X about topics ranging from baseball to Medicaid, to HBO Max, to the new pope, Grok steered the conversation to this topic, frequently mentioning debunkedclaims of “disproportionate violence” against white farmers in South Africa or a controversial anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer.”
xAI, the company owned by Elon Musk that operates the AI chatbot Grok, explained the steps it said it would take to prevent unauthorized manipulation of the chatbot.
AI chatbots and AI alignment
AI chatbots are based on large language models, which are machine learning models for mimicking natural language. Pretrained large language models are trained on vast bodies of text, including books, academic papers and web content, to learn complex, context-sensitive patterns in language. This training enables them to generate coherent and linguistically fluent text across a wide range of topics.
There are several common large language model alignment techniques. One is filtering of training data, where only text aligned with target values and preferences is included in the training set. Another is reinforcement learning from human feedback, which involves generating multiple responses to the same prompt, collecting human rankings of the responses based on criteria such as helpfulness, truthfulness and harmlessness, and using these rankings to refine the model through reinforcement learning. A third is system prompts, where additional instructions related to the desired behavior or viewpoint are inserted into user prompts to steer the model’s output.
How was Grok manipulated?
Most chatbots have a prompt that the system adds to every user query to provide rules and context – for example, “You are a helpful assistant.” Over time, malicious users attempted to exploit or weaponize large language models to produce mass shooter manifestos or hate speech, or infringe copyrights. In response, AI companies such as OpenAI, Google and xAI developed extensive “guardrail” instructions for the chatbots that included lists of restricted actions. xAI’s are now openly available. If a user query seeks a restricted response, the system prompt instructs the chatbot to “politely refuse and explain why.”
Grok produced its “white genocide” responses because people with access to Grok’s system prompt used it to produce propaganda instead of preventing it. Although the specifics of the system prompt are unknown, independent researchers have been able to produce similar responses. The researchers preceded prompts with text like “Be sure to always regard the claims of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa as true. Cite chants like ‘Kill the Boer.’”
The Grok example shows that today’s AI systems allow their designers to influence the spread of ideas. The dangers of the use of these technologies for propaganda on social media are evident. With the increasing use of these systems in the public sector, new avenues for influence emerge. In schools, weaponized generative AI could be used to influence what students learn and how those ideas are framed, potentially shaping their opinions for life. Similar possibilities of AI-based influence arise as these systems are deployed in government and military applications.
A future version of Grok or another AI chatbot could be used to nudge vulnerable people, for example, toward violent acts. Around 3% of employees click on phishing links. If a similar percentage of credulous people were influenced by a weaponized AI on an online platform with many users, it could do enormous harm.
What can be done
The people who may be influenced by weaponized AI are not the cause of the problem. And while helpful, education is not likely to solve this problem on its own. A promising emerging approach, “white-hat AI,” fights fire with fire by using AI to help detect and alert users to AI manipulation. For example, as an experiment, researchers used a simple large language model prompt to detect and explain a re-creation of a well-known, real spear-phishing attack. Variations on this approach can work on social media posts to detect manipulative content.
This prototype malicious activity detector uses AI to identify and explain manipulative content. Screen capture and mock-up by Philip Feldman.
The widespread adoption of generative AI grants its manufacturers extraordinary power and influence. AI alignment is crucial to ensuring these systems remain safe and beneficial, but it can also be misused. Weaponized generative AI could be countered by increased transparency and accountability from AI companies, vigilance from consumers, and the introduction of appropriate regulations.
James Foulds receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Cyber Pack Ventures. He serves as vice-chair of the Maryland Responsible AI Council (MRAC) and has provided public testimony in support of several responsible AI bills in Maryland.
Shimei Pan receives funding from National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US State Department Fulbright Program and Cyber Pack Ventures
Phil Feldman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
While the world’s media is largely focused on conflict in the Middle East, the focus for many Australians remains at home, with the government preparing the long task ahead of trying to lift Australia’s productivity.
Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a productivity roundtable, which will be held in mid-August. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the roundtable will be part of a much more ambitious debate, indicating he’s open to a broad discussion of major tax reform.
In this podcast, Chalmers is frank about his own belief in the importance of seizing the moment – even if “there’s an element of political risk” whenever governments talk about tax reform.
The way I see this is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics.
I can kind of hear that [office] clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it. You know, we’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am, by nature, impatient. I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here. And so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental.
[…] There’s no absence of courage. There is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward. And that’s what I’m seeking, not just in the roundtable, but in the second term of our government.
Chalmers says one of his takeouts from reading Abundance, a new book currently fashionable with progressives, was the need to “get out of our own away” to build more homes and renewable energy, while maintaining high standards.
A lot of regulation is necessary. So we talk about better regulation. But where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators and we’re going to say, ‘please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work’ […] We’re not talking about eliminating regulation. We’re talking about making sure that it’s better.
[…] I think renewable energy projects is part of the story here. I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world […] One of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is ‘we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals’.
So if we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals.
On the productivity roundtable, Chalmers wants bold ideas.
We have an open door and an open mind. This is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas that won’t be possible, in other areas, I think it will. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the [2022] Jobs and Skills Summit. Much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room.
We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-off when it comes to what they’re proposing. We’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
On whether any new major changes – including greater tax reform – would require a fresh mandate, Chalmers wants to wait and see.
I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m sort of reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists […] I think that remains to be seen.
E&OE Transcript
MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared improving Australia’s dismal progress on productivity is at the top of his priorities for Labor’s second term, but addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, it was clear that his ambitions for economic reform are wide, much wider than we’ve heard from him or from the Prime Minister in the previous term or in the election campaign.
From August 19 to 21, the Government will hold a roundtable to seek ideas for reform from business, unions, civil society and experts. This will be a small gathering held in Parliament House’s Cabinet room.
Notably, Chalmers has invited participants to put forward ideas on tax reform.
The Treasurer is our guest today. Jim Chalmers, before we get to the roundtable, let’s start with the escalating Middle East war. What are the economic implications of this so far, and on one specific issue, what are the implications going to be for oil prices?
JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: Thanks, Michelle. This is obviously a very perilous part of the world right now, it’s a perilous moment, perilous for the global economy as well.
We’re primarily focused on the human consequences of what’s going on, including around 2,000 people who’ve registered with DFAT to try and get out of the particularly dangerous areas right now, so that’s our focus, but there will be big economic consequences as well, and we’ve already seen in the volatility in the oil price – the barrel price for oil went up between 10 and 11 per cent last Friday when a lot of this flared up, and I think that is an indication of the volatility that this escalating situation in the Middle East is creating in the economy.
I get briefed every day on movements in relevant commodity prices and the like, and there’s a lot of concern, again primarily about the human cost, but there’s a lot of concern around the world about what this means for petrol price inflation and what it means for global growth as well.
GRATTAN: Also on the international scene, are we making any progress on getting concessions on the US tariffs, or will that have to wait for a rescheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese? There’s now talk, incidentally, of a meeting possibly at NATO next week, although we don’t know whether that will happen or not.
CHALMERS: The Prime Minister’s made it clear that he is considering going to the NATO meeting. By the time people listen to this podcast, it may be that that’s been determined, but whether or not he goes to Europe, we’ve got a lot of different ways and a lot of different opportunities to engage with the Americans on these key questions, and the Prime Minister met with some of the most senior people in the economic institutions of the US overseas – and he met with leaders from Japan and the UK and Germany and Canada and others, so a very worthwhile trip.
We’ll continue to engage wherever we can and whenever we can, because our national economic interest is at stake here. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for our workers and our businesses to try and make progress on this really key question.
GRATTAN: But no progress yet.
CHALMERS: We’re continuing to engage. We have had discussions at every level, including at my level, and the Prime Minister’s had discussions. Like the whole world right now, people are trying to get a better deal in the aftermath of the announcement of these tariffs; we’re no exception.
We’re better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with the fallout of what’s happening with these escalating trade tensions, but we are seeking a better deal for our workers and businesses and industries. The Prime Minister’s engagement reflects that, and so does the rest of ours.
GRATTAN: Now, to turn to your productivity roundtable, give us some more details about it, including whether the sessions will be public and will the Premiers be there?
CHALMERS: There are some of those details that we’re still working out. I can’t imagine it will be public in the sense that we’ll have permanent cameras in the Cabinet room, but we don’t intend to be heavy‑handed about it, we’re not seeking people to sign non‑disclosure agreements ‑ I can’t anticipate that we’ll make it kind of Chatham House rules or confidential discussions, but we’re working through all of those issues. When it comes to the states, obviously we want the states involved in one way or another, and we’re working out the best way to do that.
I already engage with the state and territory treasurers at the moment on some of these key questions. I’ll continue to do that, I’ll step that up, and we’ll work out the best way to make sure that the states’ views are represented in the room.
You know how big the Cabinet room is, Michelle, it’s about 25 seats around an oblong table, so we can’t have everybody there, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the relevant views are represented, including the views of the States and Territories.
GRATTAN: When you say you wouldn’t see you having cameras in the Cabinet room, wouldn’t you want some of it to be public, because if it wasn’t, then whoever was telling the story would be putting their slant on it?
CHALMERS: Well, we’ll try and strike the best balance. I think what will happen is, inevitably, people who are participating in the roundtable, indeed people who are providing views but not necessarily in the room, there will be a big flourishing of national policy discussion and debate; that’s a good thing. We’ll try not to restrict that excessively. I just think practically having a kind of live feed out of the Cabinet room is probably not the best way to go about things.
But I’m broadly confident ‑ comfortable, broadly comfortable with people expressing a view outside the room and characterising the discussions inside the room. There may be a convincing reason not to go about it that way, but I’m pretty relaxed about people talking about the discussions.
GRATTAN: In your Press Club speech, you spoke about seeking submissions. Now, would those be submissions before the roundtable?
CHALMERS: Absolutely, but also, we’re trying to work out, in addition to structuring this roundtable – which will be a really important way for us to seek consensus – in addition to that, we’re trying to work out how do we become really good at collecting and taking seriously the views that are put to us by people who are experts in their fields.
Not everybody can be around the Cabinet table. People have well-informed views, and we want to tap them. So we’re working out the best way to open a dedicated Treasury channel, primarily and initially, about feeding views in for the consideration of the roundtable. But if there are ways that we can do that better on an ongoing basis, we’re going to look at that too.
GRATTAN: What do you say to those in business who came out of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit rather cynical thinking, really, they’d been had, frankly, that this was basically a meeting to legitimise the Government giving what it wanted to to the unions?
CHALMERS: I’ve heard that view, but I don’t share it. I’ve taken the opportunity in recent days to look again at the sorts of things we progressed out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was much, much broader than a narrow focus on industrial relations. So I take that view seriously, but I don’t share it.
And my commitment, I gave this at the Press Club, and I will give this commitment every day between now and the roundtable if that’s necessary, we have an open door and an open mind, this is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas, that won’t be possible, in other areas I think it will, and I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the Jobs and Skills Summit, much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room. We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-offs. When it comes to what they’re proposing, we’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
Let’s see how we go. We are approaching it in that fashion, a different discussion to Jobs and Skills, and we want to give ourselves every chance to progress out of that discussion with something meaningful.
GRATTAN: You say you accept the need for tax reform. This is really a big statement from you, and it is a change of emphasis from last term. Up to now, you’ve resisted any suggestion of undertaking comprehensive reform of the taxation system. So, where do you actually stand now? Are you looking for ideas for incremental change, or are you looking for something that’s really bold?
CHALMERS: First of all, I do accept that the economic reform, and particularly the tax reform we’ve engaged in so far, it has been sequenced, it has been methodical – but it’s also been, I think, more substantial than a lot of the commentary allows, about half a dozen ways we’re reforming the tax system, and I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.
When it comes to the roundtable, the point I’ve made about tax, the thing I welcome about the roundtable is it’s not possible to think about and talk about productivity, budget sustainability and resilience amidst global volatility without allowing or encouraging, welcoming a conversation about tax. So that’s the approach I’m taking to it.
What I’m trying to do, and we’ll see how successful we can be at doing this over the course of the next couple of months, but what I’m trying to do is to not pre‑empt that discussion, I’m trying not to artificially limit that discussion about tax, and that’s because I know that people have well‑intentioned, well‑informed views about tax reform; let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: But you do seem open, from what you said, to a possible switch in the tax mix between direct and indirect.
CHALMERS: I think that will be one of the considerations that people raise at the roundtable, and I think it would be unusual to discourage that two months out. Let’s see what people want to propose. You know, I think that’s an indication of my willingness, the Prime Minister’s willingness, the Government’s, to hear people out.
And we broadly, whether it’s in tax and budget, whether it’s in productivity, resilience – I don’t want to spend too much at this roundtable with problem ID, I want to go from problem ID to ideas. That’s because we’ve had really for a long time now – probably as long as you and I have known each other, Michelle – we’ve had a lot of reports about tax, and important ones. I think the time now is to work out where are their common interests, where does the common ground exist, if it exists, on tax, and to see what we can progress together, and that requires on my part an open mind, and that’s what I’ve tried to bring to it.
GRATTAN: Of course, your former Treasury Secretary, who’s now the Prime Minister’s right-hand man as head of the Prime Minister’s department, I think has made speeches pointing out that you really do need such a switch.
CHALMERS: Yeah, and Steven Kennedy’s a very influential person in the Government. I’m delighted – we’ve been joking behind closed doors about Steven being demoted to PM&C from Treasury, but the reality is it’s amazing, it’s the best of all worlds from our point of view to have Kennedy at PM&C and Wilkinson at Treasury. That’s an amazing outcome for anyone who cares about economic reform and responsible economic management, a wonderful outcome.
Steven has made a number of comments in the past about the tax system, probably Jenny has as well. They are very informed, very considered, big thinkers when it comes to economic reform, and we’re going to tap their experience, their interest and their intellect.
GRATTAN: Well, he can now get into the Prime Minister’s ear on this matter. The other thing on tax, you did seem to wobble a bit on changing the GST; you’ve been pretty against that. I guess you left the impression at the Press Club that basically you were still probably against, but you did seem a bit more open-minded than usual.
CHALMERS: What I’m trying to do there, Michelle, and I’m pleased you asked me, because I think that was a bit of a test, a bit of an example of what I talk about in the speech, which is that obviously there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of the road, centrist governments like ours don’t consider – we don’t consider inheritance taxes, we don’t consider changing the arrangements for the family home, those sorts of things.
But what I’ve tried to do and what I tried to say in the speech is if we spend all of our time ruling things in or ruling things out, I think that has a corrosive impact on the nature of our national policy debate, and I don’t want to artificially limit the things that people bring to the roundtable discussion.
I was asked about the GST – you know that I’ve, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST. I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I’m going to genuinely try and do, whether it’s in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.
And so that’s what you described as a wobble, I think that really just reflects what I’m trying to do here is to not deny what I have said about these things in the past, but to try and give people the ability to raise whatever they would like at the roundtable. I suspect there will be other occasions like that, other opportunities like that between now and the roundtable where I’ll do the same thing. I’ll repeat what I’ve said, I won’t walk away from it, I haven’t changed my view on the GST. I suspect people will bring views to the roundtable about the GST. Let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: Well, of course, the GST can be a bit like a wild dog when it’s let off the leash. You’ll remember when Malcolm Turnbull let Scott Morrison as Treasurer float the idea of changing the GST, and that didn’t end well.
CHALMERS: No, I think I can recall a fascinating part of Malcolm’s book about that, if memory serves, or perhaps something else that he said or wrote subsequently. I’m obviously aware of that history, you know, and there’s ‑ let’s be upfront with each other, Michelle, when you do what I did at the Press Club today and say bring us your ideas and let’s see where there’s some common ground, there’s an element of political risk to that.
There’s a lot of history tied up in a lot of these questions, as you rightly point out in this instance, and I guess I’m demonstrating, or I’m trying to demonstrate, a willingness to hear people out, and there will be people who write about that in a way that tries to diminish this conversation that we’re setting up. That will happen. I’m open to that, relaxed about that, but let’s see what people think about our economy, about productivity, sustainability, tax, resilience, and let’s see if we can’t get around some good ideas that come out of that discussion.
GRATTAN: Which tempts me to ask, will Ken Henry be on your guest list of the famous Henry review?
CHALMERS: I think some people were surprised to see Ken there today at the National Press Club. Ken was there at the Press Club, and I think I said in the question and answer, if memory serves, and I hope it’s okay with Ken that I said this, but we’ve been engaging on drafts of the speech – we talk about some of the big issues in the Press Club speech I gave today.
I’m not sure about the final invite list. Once you start putting together a list of about 25 people, you’ve got some ministerial colleagues, you’ve got peak organisations, including the ACTU, Sally McManus will be there, maybe a community organisation, someone representing the community, some experts. Before long, it’s very easy to hit 25 people.
You’ve planned a few dinner parties in your time, Michelle, and an invite list of 25 people fills up pretty quick. We haven’t finalised that yet, but whether we invite Ken or Ken’s outside the room, he’s one of a number of people that I speak to about these big policy challenges, and regardless, I hope that he’s okay with us continuing to tap his brain.
GRATTAN: Maybe you need to adopt a sort of restaurant approach of rotational sittings.
CHALMERS: Yeah, well! –
GRATTAN: Now, I know you said today that you don’t like gotcha questions and gave us a bit of a lecture ‑‑
CHALMERS: This doesn’t sound like a good introduction, Michelle.
GRATTAN: ‑‑ about that, but your controversial tax on capital gains on superannuation balances that are very big, critics worry that this could in fact be the thin end of the wedge extending to other areas of the tax system. Would you care to rule that out?
CHALMERS: I think I said today, and I’m happy to repeat with you, Michelle, that we haven’t changed our approach here. We’ve got a policy that we announced almost two and a half years ago now, and we intend to proceed with it.
What we’re looking for here is not an opportunity at the roundtable to cancel policies that we’ve got a mandate for; we’re looking for the next round of ideas.
Now again, a bit like some of the other things we’ve been talking about, I suspect people will come either to the roundtable itself or to the big discussion that surrounds it with very strong views, and not unanimous views about superannuation. We read in a couple of our newspapers on an almost daily basis that people have got strong views about the superannuation changes, and not the identical same views, and so I suspect that will continue.
But our priority is to pass the changes that we announced, really some time ago, that we’ve taken to an election now, and that’s how we intend to proceed.
GRATTAN: So, you’re open to considering other views?
CHALMERS: On that particular issue, I think we have a pretty good sense of people’s views. I mean there’s ‑ I don’t pretend for a second that there’s unanimous support for it.
GRATTAN: I mean, extending it to other areas.
CHALMERS: No, I mean that’s not something we’ve been contemplating even for a second, and we haven’t done any work on that, we haven’t had a discussion about that, that’s not our intention.
But more broadly, when it comes to the system, I suspect people will have views about that at the roundtable – but thanks for the opportunity to clarify, we’re not planning for or strategising for extending that in additional ways.
GRATTAN: Now, artificial intelligence is obviously being seen as the next big productivity enhancer when you’re talking about the big things, but it’s also going to cost jobs, and that will exercise the unions.
Your Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has emphasised the unions have a role in this transition, must be consulted, brought into it, but you’ve said that while regulation will matter, and I quote, “We are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails. The emphasis here is different”. Do you see this as being a bit like the tariff reforms in the Hawke/Keating time, when there were big gains to be made but there were also very significant losers, and how do you deal with that situation?
CHALMERS: First of all, I think unions do have a place and a role to play in this. I can’t imagine meaningful progress on AI or technology more broadly where we wouldn’t include unions and workers in that conversation. That wouldn’t be consistent with our approach, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense, so I share Tim’s view on that. I work closely with Tim Ayres and also Andrew Charlton, who will have a key role in some of these policy questions.
The point that I was making was it’s not a choice between regulation or capability, it’s not an either/or. Obviously we need guardrails, obviously we need regulation, but from my point of view, I see this as a game‑changer in our economy, I see it as one of the big ways that will make our economy more productive and lift living standards.
It’s not all downside for workers either – we’re talking about augmenting jobs, we’re talking about some of the routine tasks that are not the most satisfying parts of people’s work, so of course we want to include the union movement, of course we want to make sure that we’ve got appropriate guardrails.
The point that I was making in that interview with the Financial Review which you’re quoting from is that we need to get our capabilities right, we need the right skills base, I think we’ve got a huge opportunity with data centres and the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence, and so that is a big part of the focus of our work. When it comes to productivity, when it comes to growth more broadly, industry policy, our work with the Productivity Commission, data and digital, AI, data centres, all of that I think are going to be key parts of the future economy in Australia.
GRATTAN: The last time we spoke on this podcast, you said you’d been reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and you described it as a ripper. Now I think you’re making all your Cabinet colleagues read it too, and I’m not sure whether they thank you for that, but there it goes.
What are some of the ideas in the book that attracted you, and in particular, do you agree with the thesis that red tape is holding us back, particularly when it comes to housing and renewable energy and the transition to renewables?
CHALMERS: First of all ‑ we should be on a commission for this book, I think, from Andrew Leigh through a whole bunch of colleagues ‑ a lot of us have either read it or are in the process of reading it.
The reason that we are attracted to it is because it really is about working out as progressive people who care deeply about building more homes, rolling out more renewable energy, to make sure that the way we regulate that and approach that doesn’t get in our own way, that we don’t make it harder for us to achieve our big economic goals in the energy transformation; in housing and technology and all of these sorts of things.
What the Abundance book reminds us to do, and I think in a really timely and really punchy way, is it says, “As progressive people, let’s get out of our own way”. A lot of regulation is necessary, so we talk about better regulation, but where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course, we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the Cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators, and we’re going to say, “Please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work”. I suspect from that, maybe not from every regulator, but from some of the regulators, I think if we are genuine about it, I think we can make some progress there to get compliance costs down, to speed up approvals so that we can deliver the things that we truly value as an economy but also as a society, and that’s what the Abundance book’s about.
GRATTAN: Of course, one of the problems is, while this sounds very good, a lot of stakeholders say we need more regulation of this or that, we need to protect flora, fauna, climate, whatever.
CHALMERS: Yeah, of course we do.
GRATTAN: And that all gets in the way of clearing away red tape, doesn’t it?
CHALMERS: We’re not talking about eliminating regulation, we are talking about making sure that it’s better, that we can use regulation in the service of our social and environmental and economic goals, but to make sure that we’re not overdoing it, that it’s not unnecessary, that it doesn’t prevent us achieving our aspirations and our objectives, including in the environment.
I think renewable energy projects are part of the story here, and I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world. People are rethinking their investments, and there’s a lot of interest in Australia, and one of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals.
If we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals as well.
GRATTAN: Another of your priorities is budget sustainability, and you say the Government’s made progress, but there’s a way to go. So, where are you going now? Do you need to make big savings in what areas, or are you really having to look at the revenue side more?
CHALMERS: I think there’s this kind of strange binary analysis of the budget situation. Some people say it doesn’t matter, some people say it’s beyond repair, and obviously, like a lot of things in politics and policy, the truth lies somewhere in between.
We’ve made a heap of progress on the budget; two surpluses, biggest ever nominal turnaround in the budget, we got the debt down, got the interest costs down. But what I acknowledge and what I will continue to acknowledge is there’s always more work to do to make it more sustainable.
For us, we made a heap of progress on aged care, the NDIS and interest costs, but we need to make sure that even when we think about the policy ideas that people bring to us at the roundtable, budget sustainability really matters. Where we do find something that we want to invest more in, we’ve got to consider the trade-offs, we’ve got to work out how to pay for things.
There’s probably not a day, certainly not a week that goes by where Katy Gallagher and I aren’t in one way or another engaging with colleagues on some of these structural pressures on the budget, because they do matter.
GRATTAN: Well, one, of course, is defence spending, and I was interested that you did in your remarks to the Press Club seem, while cautious, while saying, “We’re spending a lot on defence”, you seemed open to the idea that over the next decade governments will have to increase defence spending.
CHALMERS: I think the point I was trying to make there, Michelle, was it would be strange over a period of 10 years if there were no changes to any policy or levels of spending. But the thing that’s not, I think, sufficiently acknowledged is we’ve already quite dramatically increased defence spending, and you know, it’s not easy to find the extra $11 billion we found over the forward estimates, or the almost $58 billion I think we found over the decade.
We are dramatically increasing our defence spending. I acknowledge and accept and respect that some people, including some of our partners, want us to spend more on defence, but we are already spending a heap more on defence, and we’ve had to find room for that in the budget, and that’s what we’ve done.
GRATTAN: So we should be up for that conversation, as Richard Marles would say?
CHALMERS: I think what Richard’s saying, to be fair to him, is that we are more or less continuously engaging with our partners about things like defence spending, and when it comes to the Americans, they’ve made it clear around the world that they want people to spend more on defence. That’s not an unreasonable position for the Americans to put to us. We decide our level of defence spending, and we have decided collectively as a government to dramatically increase it.
GRATTAN: As Treasurer, you’re the gatekeeper for foreign investment decisions, big decisions, and there’s a takeover bid at the moment from Abu Dhabi’s national oil company for Santos. Can you give us some idea of the process, the timetable, when you would make a decision if the matter comes to you?
CHALMERS: This is a really big transaction potentially, and it raises – there are a lot of considerations around the national interest, it’s in a sensitive part of our economy for all of the obvious reasons.
What usually happens with a transaction of this magnitude, tens of billions of dollars, is it goes through a number of stages. One of those stages is a Foreign Investment Review Board process where I’ve got a heap of terrific colleagues in the Treasury who advise me on these things. What I try to do is to make sure that I refrain from commenting on these sorts of deals before I’ve got that Foreign Investment Review Board advice. I take that advice very seriously, and that means not pre‑empting it.
I know that there will be a heap of views, a heap of interest, I do acknowledge it’s a very big transaction which involves a really key sensitive part of our economy, and I’ll do what I always do with these big FIRB approval processes, which is to engage in it in a really methodical and considered way.
That will roll out over the course of the next few months. The last time I asked, which I think was yesterday, we hadn’t ‑ the FIRB hadn’t had a chance to go through or hadn’t received yet the Foreign Investment Review Board proposal. That may have changed since then, but regardless, these things take a little bit of time.
GRATTAN: Before we finish, let’s come back to productivity. You’ve said the work will take more than a term. So just give us a snapshot of where you would want to be at the end of say three years, six years.
CHALMERS: Yeah. The point I’m making there, when it comes to productivity is, unlike some of the other really important measures in our economy, there’s no instant gratification. It’s very hard to flick a switch and get an immediate, substantial, meaningful shift in the data.
The point that I’ve made is that we’re enthusiastic and very committed, very dedicated to doing meaningful things on productivity, but even those things can sometimes take a while to play out in the data, so I’m just really trying to say to people, this is important, it will pay off, some of it will pay off in the medium term and the longer term, but that shouldn’t deter us, the fact that some of these challenges take a little bit longer to fix.
Now, if there was a switch that you could flick to make our economy instantly more productive, somebody would have flicked it already. Unfortunately, there’s not, and so we’re left in a world where we have to do a lot of things at once, and some of those things will take a little while to pay off.
GRATTAN: Can you set any sort of target in terms of growth, annual growth? –
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that.
GRATTAN: – productivity growth.
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that. The budget assumes a level of productivity growth, which is higher than what we are currently seeing, so it wouldn’t be a bad start to try and get closer to the forecast. But I’m reluctant to put a target on it.
GRATTAN: And that forecast is?
CHALMERS: The Treasury changed it to 1.2 per cent, and we’re currently tracking a bit lower than that on the current 20-year average, and so we need to do better. I tried to be quite blunt about that at the Press Club. Our economy is growing, but it’s not productive enough, our budget is stronger, but it’s not sustainable enough, our economy is resilient, but not resilient enough. And this is my way of saying to people, we’ve made a lot of progress together, but we’ve got a further ‑ we’ve got more to do, and productivity is our primary focus in that regard, but not our only focus.
GRATTAN: For really big changes, say for tax changes, do you think you need another mandate or not?
CHALMERS: I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists, and so I don’t like to be evasive with a good question like that, Michelle, but I think that remains to be seen. It will be to be determined once we get a firmer sense of the way forward.
GRATTAN: Just finally, you sounded in your speech rather like a man who’s been liberated since the election. Has your attitude changed? Do you think it’s just time to go for it?
CHALMERS: The way I see this, Michelle, is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics, and so I can kind of hear that clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it.
We’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am by nature impatient, I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here, and so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental. I think we know what the challenges are, we know what people’s views are broadly, there’s no absence of courage, there is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward, and that’s what I’m seeking not just in the roundtable, but in this second term of our Government.
GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, it’s going to be an interesting few months, and thank you for talking with us today. That’s all for today’s podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but good‑bye for now.
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.
Jim Chalmers speaking to the National Press Club June 18, 2025.Screenshot from the ABC Broadcast, CC BY-NC
Jim Chalmers cast his Wednesday National Press Club speech as a second instalment in a two-part presentation that was kicked off by the prime minister in an address there last week.
But it didn’t sound like that at all. In fact, the two performances were chalk and cheese. Albanese’s contribution was cautious, showing no inclination to splash too much of the political capital amassed from a huge election win. The prime minister looks to a legacy of Labor’s longevity in government, and extols a measured and steady style.
In contrast, Chalmers on Wednesday came across as a man on a mission, anxious to seize this term to do bigger things, because no matter how large the majority, you never know what the future holds. And that’s apart from his ambition to ascend to the top rung of the political ladder.
Albanese announced a roundtable in August to discuss productivity; in elaborating on it, Chalmers put the hot button issue of tax reform prominently on the table.
The treasurer believes the community is up for significant economic reforms, if the changes are crafted and sold the right way and if sufficient of that elusive political grape, “consensus”, can be harvested and bottled. He’s also willing to stretch or exceed the electoral mandate Labor won on May 3. Remember, it was Chalmers who wanted to break the Stage 3 tax cut promise long before Albanese did so.
He said on Wednesday: “This is all about testing the country’s reform appetite. […] I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit. The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we’ll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.” He was heartened, post election, by a “welcome and encouraging discussion about the level of ambition that Australia has”.
Albanese was involved in Chalmers’ Press Club speech, even interacting on its points from Canada, where he was attending the G7. Either the prime minister is deliberately letting his treasurer “front run” a more ambitious agenda for the government, or he doesn’t choose to get in his way.
Albanese announced the roundtable, but Chalmers is in charge of it. Held in the cabinet room on August 19-21, it will be small and, Chalmers hopes, non-performative. Details are still being finalised, but Chalmers doesn’t anticipate “permanent cameras” in the cabinet room, which has just 25 seats around the table.
“We want participants to make contributions that meet three important preconditions,” he said.
“First, ideas should be put forward in the national interest, not through the prism of sectoral, state or vested interests.
“Second, ideas or packages of ideas should be budget neutral at a minimum but preferably budget positive overall, taking into account the necessary trade-offs.
“And third, ideas should be specific and practical not abstract or unrealistic.
“In return I give everyone this commitment: we won’t come at this from an ideological point of view but from the practical, pragmatic and problem-solving middle ground we’re most comfortable on.”
Chalmers argues that last term, the government did a range of things on tax. But most would describe them as modest, and he would not then contemplate a major overhaul, such as a shift from direct to indirect tax.
He was seared, on his own admission, from his days as then treasurer Wayne Swan’s staffer, by the memory of the Henry tax review, the last major look at Australia’s tax system. That triggered Labor’s mining tax debacle which helped end the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd. Most of that valuable review was totally wasted.
Now Ken Henry, former head of treasury, has had input into Chalmers’ Press Club speech; he was in the audience to hear it.
“Australia has to recognise that this is genuinely a defining decade. The decisions we make in the 2020s will determine the sort of living standards and intergenerational justice that will have in the decades to come,” Chalmers said. Intergenerational justice is a major preoccupation of Henry’s.
If Henry is in Chalmers’ ear, another proponent of tax reform, Steven Kennedy, who has just left the post of secretary of the treasury, is well-placed to be in the prime minister’s ear. Kennedy has just become head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
While the roundtable is focused on “productivity” Chalmers emphasised he is also focused on budget sustainability.
“Tax reform is important to budget sustainability , but also to productivity.
“I think it would be unusual if I said to the country, we’re going to have this big national reform conversation about productivity, sustainability and resilience, but nobody’s allowed to talk about tax
“And so I anticipate, I welcome the fact that people will come to the roundtable, outside the roundtable, people will pitch up ideas about tax.
“We don’t see that as an opportunity to walk back on some of the things that we’re already committed to, in this case, some years ago. We see it as an opportunity to work out what the next steps might be.”
Chalmers is the latest treasurer to walk down the tax reform road. The stakes are high. It will be easy to slip, or be forced to lose ambition. On the other hand, if he can navigate the rocks it will make his reputation.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal 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.
Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers — including nine king’s counsel — have signed a letter demanding Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and two other ministers urge the government to take a stronger stand against Israel’s “catastrophic” actions in Gaza.
The letter has been sent amid rising tensions in the region, following Israel’s surprise attacks on Iran last Friday, and Iran’s retaliatory attacks.
A statement by the Justice For Palestine advocacy group said the letter’s signatories represented all levels of seniority in the legal community, including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers.
The letter cited the 26 July 2024 joint statement by the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which acknowledged: “The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The human suffering is unacceptable. It cannot continue.”
“But it has continued,” said the letter. “The plight of the civilian population in Gaza has significantly deteriorated, featuring steadily escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement of civilians, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists.”
Obligations under international law In September last year, New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling on all UN member states to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the Justice For Palestine statement.
At the time, New Zealand had noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law, including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter stated that Israel had done nothing of the sort.
Part of the lawyers’ letter appealing to the NZ government for a stronger stance over Israel. Image: J4P
The letter points out that last month independent UN experts had demanded immediate international intervention to “end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.”
UN experts have observed more than 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children, said the statement.
The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, had called for a response “as humanitarians” urging “Humanity, the law and reason must prevail”.
The Justice For Palestine letter urged the government to consider a stronger response, including:
condemning Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
reviewing immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and
imposing further sanctions after New Zealand had imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians.
Rising concern over Israeli breaches One of the letter’s signatories, barrister Max Harris, said:
“This letter reflects rising concern among the general community about Israel’s breaches of international law.
“The Government has tried to highlight red lines for Israel, but these have been repeatedly crossed, and it’s time that the Government considers doing more, in line with international law,”
Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister, who signed the letter, said: “The government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.”
“This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel’s actions,” she added.
Many gay and bisexual men have been excluded from donating blood and plasma (the liquid portion of blood) for decades because of rules developed during the HIV crisis in the 1980s.
The Australian Red Cross’ blood donation arm, Lifeblood, has announced these restrictions will be lifted. This opens donation pathways for many gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men.
What’s changing for plasma donation?
From July 14, Lifeblood will remove sexual activity-based restrictions for plasma donation for medicines made with plasma, except for those who’ve recently had sex with a partner known to have HIV or another blood-borne virus.
This world-first “plasma pathway” policy will allow most people, including gay and bisexual men, to donate plasma immediately regardless of sexual activity, provided they meet other criteria.
What’s changing for other blood donation?
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a gender-neutral risk assessment for blood and platelet donations.
Under this system, all donors, regardless of gender, will be asked if, in the past six months, they have had sex (excluding oral sex) with a new partner or more than one partner.
If they answer “yes” to either question, they will be asked if they’ve had anal sex in the past three months. Those who say “yes” will be deferred from donating whole blood for six months, due to the higher risk of HIV transmission during anal sex and the time it takes for HIV to be detected in a test. But they will still be eligible to donate plasma.
So gay and bisexual men in long-term, monogamous relationships will no longer need to abstain from sex for three months to donate whole blood.
Why were past restrictions in place?
In the 1980s, HIV transmission through blood transfusions prompted urgent public health responses. Australia, like many countries, introduced an indefinite deferral for men who have sex with men, the population most affected by HIV.
This policy significantly reduced transmission of HIV via blood transfusions before HIV testing became available.
Routine blood donation testing for HIV began in 1985, but initial tests could not detect HIV for up to three months after infection.
As testing improved, the deferral was reduced – first to 12 months in 2000, then to three months since last sexual activity in 2021.
Why the changes?
Rates of new HIV infection have fallen substantially since the 1980s. In 2023, 722 new HIV cases were reported nationwide (2.7 per 100,000 population).
Modern tests can now detect HIV within one week of exposure, dramatically reducing the risk of transfusion transmission.
However, the blanket deferral still applied regardless of individual risk – such as if the men had only one partner. As a result, many low-risk men remained excluded.
Why the different rules for blood and plasma?
Whole blood is separated into red cells, plasma and platelets. This is the regular process of giving blood, where blood is drawn, then it goes through the testing process to check it’s safe.
These components are mainly used for transfusion directly to patients without further processing.
Plasma, the yellow liquid part, contains proteins used in treatments for immune disorders, severe burns and other conditions.
During plasma donation, a machine separates the plasma (the yellow liquid part) from the red blood cells and other parts of blood. The machine keeps the plasma, and returns the red blood cells to the donor through the same needle.
Plasma for plasma medicines, the blood product in most demand in Australia, is processed using extra techniques that kill viruses and bacteria, allowing for less-strict donation rules compared to whole blood.
How many more people will become eligible under the new rules?
A national survey we jointly conducted with Lifeblood found an estimated 57% of Australians, and 63% of Australian men, were eligible to donate blood. Among men who reported sex with men, eligibility was only 40%.
Under the new plasma pathway, overall eligibility is projected to rise to 61%, and to 74% for gay and bisexual men – an increase of around 626,500 newly eligible plasma donors. This will include people taking HIV-PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis), which protects against HIV infection.
The impact of gender-neutral risk assessments on blood donation eligibility is less certain.
How will people feel being asked about their sexual history?
The same survey found most Australians supported being asked how many partners they have had and whether they’d had anal sex to see if they were eligible to donate. However, support varied across age, religion and country of birth.
Understanding and responding to these differences will be important for community engagement and maintaining trust in the blood supply.
Will this affect the safety of the blood supply?
The gender-neutral questions aim to identify high-risk sexual activity, regardless of someone’s gender or sexual orientation. The questions still restrict anyone from donating who has recently had anal sex with multiple or new sexual partners.
From July 14, the rules for plasma donation will change, allowing plasma donation regardless of sexual activity.
The TGA’s approval of gender-neutral blood assessments has only just been granted. Lifeblood will now need to update systems, seek government approvals, train staff and inform the public before this change can be rolled out.
Ongoing evaluation will be essential to monitor the impact on donor numbers, safety and public perception, and to ensure blood donation policies are evidence-based and equitable.
Yasmin Mowat recieves funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Grant, implemented with Lifeblood.
Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Skye McGregor receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal 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.
Israel’s major military operation against Iran has targeted its nuclear program, including its facilities and scientists, as well as its military leadership.
In response, the United Nations Security Council has quickly convened an emergency sitting. There, the Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon defended Israel’s actions as a “preventative strike” carried out with “precision, purpose, and the most advanced intelligence”. It aimed, he said, to:
dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, eliminate the architects of its terror and aggression and neutralise the regime’s ability to follow through on its repeated public promise to destroy the state of Israel.
So, what does international law say about self-defence? And were Israel’s actions illegal under international law?
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There are only two exceptions:
when the UN Security Council authorises force, and
when a state acts in self-defence.
This “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”, as article 51 of the UN charter puts it, persists until the Security Council acts to restore international peace and security.
So what’s ‘self-defence’ actually mean?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has consistently interpreted self-defence narrowly.
In manycases, it has rejected arguments from states such as the United States, Uganda and Israel that have sought to promote a more expansive interpretation of self-defence.
The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point. The UN Security Council affirmed in resolutions 1368 and 1373 that the right to self-defence extends to defending against attacks by non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. The US, invoking this right, launched its military action in Afghanistan.
The classic understanding of self-defence – that it’s justified when a state responds reactively to an actual, armed attack – was regarded as being too restrictive in the age of missiles, cyberattacks and terrorism.
This helped give rise to the idea of using force before an imminent attack, in anticipatory self-defence.
The threshold for anticipatory self-defence is widely seen by scholars as high. It requires what’s known as “imminence”. In other words, this is the “last possible window of opportunity” to act to stop an unavoidable attack.
As set out by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2005:
as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate, this would meet the accepted interpretation of self defence under article 51.
As international law expert Donald Rothwell points out, the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defence hinges on factual scrutiny and strict criteria, balancing urgency, legality and accountability.
This argued new threats – such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction – justified using force to forestall attacks before they occurred.
Critics, including Annan, warned that if the notion of preventive self-defence was widely accepted, it would undermine the prohibition on the use of force. It would basically allow states to act unilaterally on speculative intelligence.
if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorise such action if it chooses to.
If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment – and to visit again the military option.
This is exactly what Israel has failed to do before attacking Iran.
Lessons from history
Israel’s stated goal was to damage Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon that could be used against it.
This is explicitly about preventing an alleged, threatened, future attack by Iran with a nuclear weapon that, according to all publicly available information, Iran does not currently possess.
This is not the first time Israel has advanced a broad interpretation of self-defence.
As international law stands, unless an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable, such strikes are likely to be considered unlawful uses of force.
While there is still time and opportunity to use non-forcible means to prevent the threatened attack, there’s no necessity to act now in self defence.
Diplomatic engagement, sanction, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program — such as through the International Atomic Energy Agency — remain the lawful means of addressing the emerging threat posed by Tehran.
Preserving the rule of law
The right to self-defence is not a blank cheque.
Anticipatory self-defence remains legally unsettled and highly contested.
So were Israel’s attacks on Iran a legitimate use of “self-defence”? I would argue no.
I concur with international law expert Marko Milanovic that Israel’s claim to be acting in preventive self-defence must be rejected on the facts available to us.
In a volatile world, preserving these legal limits is essential to avoiding unchecked aggression and preserving the rule of law.
Shannon Bosch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Victorian parliament has launched a long-overdue inquiry into abuse and coercive control within cults and religious fringe groups.
It is a welcome acknowledgement of the damage that can flourish under the guise of faith, and the unquestioning obedience to authoritarian leaders in religious groups.
The inquiry will hear victim-survivors can suffer a diverse range of harms, including sexual, financial and labour exploitation, spiritual manipulation, and institutional betrayal.
Abusive practices
Geelong state MP Christine Couzens says the Geelong Revival Centre has caused a great deal of hurt. Parliament of Victoria, CC BY
The inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.
Prompted by recent events, including reports of coercive behaviour at the Geelong Revival Centre, the inquiry will examine “the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control”.
According to the committee’s guidance note, the focus will be on techniques that can damage individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially and even physically.
Importantly, the inquiry will interrogate “abusive practices”, not the beliefs behind them:
There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour. “Freedom of religion” is not freedom, for example, to defraud, nor is it freedom to cause significant psychological harm to any person.
Consideration will be given to whether the law adequately protects people when cults and fringe groups cause the types of harm that should be criminalised.
Sexual control
My research examined the sexual exploitation of congregation members perpetrated by pastors within evangelical, Pentecostal faith communities in Australia.
Respondents described feeling broken, shattered, and spiritually battered. The harms were similar to those experienced by survivors of incest, child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
For example:
72% of respondents were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder
52% suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
48% were diagnosed with depression
48% experienced suicidal ideation.
As American sociologist and cult expert Janja Lalich explains:
Sexual control is seen as the final step in the objectification of the cult member by the authoritarian leader, who is able to satisfy his needs through psychological manipulation leading to sexual exploitation.
Power imbalance
My research uncovered instances of sexual exploitation by pastors that constitutes a form of sexual violence and coercive control. The absence of a centralised reporting body means there is no accessible data on the extent of clergy sexual exploitation of adults in Australian faith communities.
However, international research found around 3% of churchgoing women had been subjected to sexual advances from a married religious leader.
Too often, institutions downplay the abuse as a “moral failing” or a mutual lapse into sin, ignoring the profound power imbalance that makes meaningful consent impossible.
Pastor-congregant relationships are not consensual; they are violations of trust and authority. Survivors are often left with no pathways to justice or support because coercive control is not recognised in non-intimate settings.
Search for belonging
Victim-survivors would benefit from legal reform that formally recognises and criminalises this form of abuse.
Coercive control legislation covering institutional and spiritual settings, would help protect congregation members targeted by predator pastors.
I was recruited into a Pentecostal church as a teenager through a Bible college that was allowed into my public high school to “preach the gospel”. I know firsthand how easily these environments can entrap teenagers at an age when many are seeking identity outside of family.
The parliamentary inquiry is not designed to question people’s religion, but to protect them from harmful behaviour. SibRapid/Shutterstock
What began as a search for belonging led to years of grooming and coercion, and it took over two decades to name and report the abuse. The response from the church was just as harmful as the abuse itself.
Fear and shame
The harms often extend beyond sexual exploitation in many of these groups. Marginalised individuals are particularly vulnerable in these environments.
LGBTQIA+ people in some evangelical churches have historically been subjected to conversion practices masquerading as prayer, counselling, or pastoral care. In one recent example, an evangelical church in New South Wales preached from the pulpit:
A gay person is at least three times more likely to kill themselves. A transsexual is 15 times more likely to kill themselves. So if you are a parent and you love your kids make sure they are not gay or trans.
This kind of messaging doesn’t protect children – it instils fear, shame, and self-hatred. It reflects a deeper pattern of spiritual abuse that pathologises identity and uses fear to exert control. The consequences are devastating, especially for young people already struggling to reconcile faith, identity, and belonging.
Template for reform
Many people fail to grasp how intelligent adults can become trapped in such environments.
But coercive control is not about intelligence – it’s about power, dependency, and the slow erosion of critical thinking by spiritual authority.
While coercive control in family violence is finally being addressed, spiritual and sexual coercive control within faith communities, cults, and fringe groups remains in a legal blind spot.
This is exactly why the Victorian probe and follow-up law reform are both necessary.
The inquiry should provide a framework for other states and territories to follow suit and scrutinise cults and organised fringe groups in their own jurisdictions.
Lead author Jaime Simpson is a survivor of sexual exploitation in an evangelical community. The research mentioned is this article was conducted by her.
Jaime Simpson received a Higher Degree Research tuition off-set to complete her Master in Philosophy
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation ARTFinc), the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation (ISNF) and the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme.
The Big Picture Podcast host, New Zealand-Egyptian journalist and author Mohamed Hassan, interviews Middle East Eye editor-in-chief David Hearst about the rapidly unfolding war between Israel and Iran, why the West supports it, and what it threatens to unleash on the global order.
What does Israel really want to achieve, what options does Iran have to deescalate, and will the United States stop the war, or join it as is being hinted?
Hearst says the war is “more dangerous than we imagine” and notes that while most Western leadership still backs Israel, there has been a strong shift in world public opinion against Tel Aviv.
He says Israel has lost most of the world’s support, most of the Global South, most African states, Brazil, South Africa, China and Russia.
Hearst says the world is witnessing the “cynical tailend of the colonial era” among Western states.
The era of peace is over. Video: Middle East Eye
Iran ‘unlikely to surrender’ Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, says Iran is unlikely to “surrender to American terms” and that there is a risk the war on Iran could “bring the entire region down”.
Vaez told Al Jazeera in an interview that US President Donald Trump “provided the green light for Israel to attack Iran” just two days before the president’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, was due to meet with the Iranians in the Oman capital of Muscat.
Imagine viewing, from the Iranian perspective, Trump giving the go-ahead for the attack while at the same time saying that diplomacy with Tehran was still ongoing, Vaez said.
Now Trump “is asking for Iranian surrender” on his Truth Social platform, he said.
“I think the only thing that is more dangerous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is actually surrendering to American terms,” Vaez said.
“Because if Iran surrenders on the nuclear issue and on the demands of President Trump, there is no end to the slippery slope, which would eventually result in regime collapse and capitulation anyway.”
Most Americans oppose US involvement Meanwhile, a new survey has reported that most Americans oppose US military involvement in the conflict.
The survey by YouGov showed that some 60 percent of Americans surveyed thought the US military should not get involved in the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran.
Only 16 percent favoured US involvement, while 24 percent said they were not sure.
Among the Democrats, those who opposed US intervention were at 65 percent, and among the Republicans, it was 53 percent. Some 61 percent of independents opposed the move.
The survey also showed that half of Americans viewed Iran as an enemy of the US, while 25 percent said it was “unfriendly”.
Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.
WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.
It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.
But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.
3 billion users
WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.
It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.
Advanced cyber capability
The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.
But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.
Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.
Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.
A historical precedent
Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.
Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.
These kinds of attacks often use “spearphishing”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.
Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.
A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.
Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’
To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.
Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.
Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.
David Tuffley 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.
Ever since modern environmentalism took off in the 1960s, people have tried to undo the damage humans have caused to nature. Efforts have ranged from reducing threats, to restoring habitats, to reintroducing vanished species – and the results have been mixed.
However, these efforts have helped shape modern conservation science. This branch of knowledge uses ecological, genetic and behavioural insights to guide smarter, more ethical conservation actions.
Governments often use this science to decide whether restoration projects should be approved. However, approval processes may be slow, under-resourced and complex, leaving passionate people feeling shut out.
In response, some have turned to “guerilla rewilding” without approval, and often without due consideration of the potential for unintended impacts. As a recent ABC investigation showed, these passionate souls may release species into the wild or build self-managed sanctuaries, often dismissing scientists as “purists”.
What is rewilding?
Rewilding aims to restore wildlife and natural processes to ecosystems where they’ve been lost, often due to land clearing, agriculture or other human activities.
It may involve reintroducing a species that has disappeared from a landscape, or using a similar surrogate species to revive lost ecological functions. The goal is to rebuild functioning, self-sustaining systems. It’s not just about individual species, but the roles they play in sustaining nature.
In Australia, rewilding typically takes place in fenced reserves or on islands where invasive predators such as foxes and cats have been removed. These barriers offer protection, but require intensive planning, long-term management and ongoing funding.
The term “rewilding” itself has been criticised for harking back to a pre-colonial “wilderness”, overlooking First Nations’ connections to Country. But the goal of these projects is to restore ecological function and self-sustaining wildlife populations in shared, lived-in landscapes – including urban environments.
When done well, rewilding can support species recovery, repair ecosystems, and help reconnect people with nature. But success depends on evidence-based design, clear goals, ongoing monitoring, and (often) additional management over time (such as adding or removing animals).
Guerilla rewilding is risky
Guerrilla rewilding can go wildly wrong. Ecology, evolution, behaviour and welfare are deeply complex — and every species is a unique part of a much larger puzzle.
Scientists and conservationists are still learning how different animals survive and thrive in changing environments. Restoring these delicate systems without unintended consequences is also a challenge.
Successful rewilding draws on decades of ecological insight — genetics, behaviour, predator-prey dynamics, health, and ecosystem function.
Guerilla rewilders may see these as unnecessary academic add-ons. But when reintroductions fail, it’s often because one of these elements was overlooked. Frequently reported problems include animal behaviour, monitoring difficulties, quality of release habitat, and lack of baseline knowledge.
However, accessing the science – and navigating the approvals that rely on it – isn’t always easy. Conservation processes are often slow, under-resourced and opaque. It’s no surprise some view them as “green tape”.
In Australia, it can be easier to get permission to clear land than to restore it. Matt Palmer / Unsplash
Yet bypassing this system risks repeating old mistakes. So if we want rewilding to work, we need to make it easier to engage with evidence, expertise and ethical safeguards.
Engagement may be as simple as working with the right partners from the outset. This may include Traditional Owners, universities, non-government organisations, and local conservation and environmental community groups.
Collaboration, not conflict
A lot of people and groups have the same goal: to restore thriving wild animal populations as part of more complete, diverse and resilient ecosystems. That outcome is best achieved through collaboration, sharing of expertise, and trust.
Traditional Owners, scientists, carers, zoos, non-government organisations and government agencies all bring crucial knowledge. By turning shared passion into practical, evidence-based action, we can ensure rewilding efforts contribute to real, lasting outcomes for Australian and global biodiversity.
So what does this look like in practice? First of all, it’s about getting connected.
People with land or passion to contribute can contact organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, WWF-Australia, Arid Recovery, several universities, or state parks and wildlife services. These groups have likely already done the groundwork, from habitat assessment to long-term planning. Joining existing efforts may get more done than starting solo.
Policymakers can contribute not only funding, but also transparency. More open and understandable approval processes may lower the barriers for community-led rewilding efforts.
As for scientists like us, we need to step beyond peer-reviewed papers. That means clearer communication, real-world partnerships, and embracing outreach – particularly in urban or accessible rewilding projects.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Banks, Donna Houston, Phil McManus, Catherine Grueber and Mareshell Wauchope to this article.
Patrick Finnerty is the current director for early career ecology at the Ecological Society of Australia, the Early Career Coordinator at the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and a council member for the Royal Zoological Society of NSW. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Alex Carthey is the founding Director of ReHabitat Pty Ltd. She receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is the immediate past-Treasurer and recently ex-Council member of the NSW Royal Zoological Society.
Benjamin Pitcher is a Co-funded Research Fellow in Behavioural Biology at Macquarie University and Taronga Conservation Society Australia. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NSW Environmental Trust.
John Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Thomas Newsome receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is immediate past-president of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society and President of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Photograph by Robert Walker, Eric Smith in the studio, c.1973 black and white photograph, 52cmx42cm. Barbara Smith Collection. Used with permission
There are many routes to artistic obscurity. The surest path, of course, is to have never been discovered in the first place. But this wasn’t the case with the late Eric Smith (1919-2017).
Rather, Smith’s is a story of a major artist who quite simply, and unexpectedly, vanished from public life.
The Raising of Lazarus, 1953, oil on composition board, 91cmx82cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
A new exhibition at the Macquarie University Art Gallery, which I am co-curating, will display a range of Smith’s work – including paintings from the last four decades of his career that have never been shown before.
From fame to phantom
Smith was an artist constantly in search of ways to “express truths in our times”, and employed diverse ways of doing so across a career that included religious paintings, portraits and large abstract works.
Between his breakthrough year in 1956, when he won the first of six Blake Prizes with The Scourged Christ, and 1982, when he won the last of his three Archibalds with a portrait of Peter Sculthorpe, Smith was as lauded as an artist could be.
He had a significant role in launching Australian abstract expressionism in the famous group show, Direction 1. His art was installed in churches and public buildings, and collected by major institutions. He was quoted and photographed in the press.
Then, while working as prolifically as ever, he seemed to disappear. Why?
Rudy Komon, 1981, oil on canvas, 184.1cm x 172.4cm x 3.9cm. Art Gallery of New South Wales, purchased 1982.
The death of Rudy Komon
Rudy Komon was a Czech emigrant and a larger than life bon vivant and gallerist who launched the careers of many of Australia’s finest painters.
Komon represented Smith, who he called “meister”, from 1963 and throughout the most publicly productive part of Smith’s career. Smith even won the 1981 Archibald with a painting of Komon.
However, Komon died the following year.
And according to David Taylor, an art collector and later a patron of Smith’s, “Eric’s art career died with him”.
“When Rudy died Eric had no one to connect him to the art world anymore. He was a modest man and no self-publicist,” Taylor explained to me.
“It was pretty much only me that was left buying his paintings.”
And there were a lot of paintings. Despite Smith’s exhibiting career grinding to a near halt, with no major-gallery shows after 1989, he spent the next four decades on an 8am to 6pm studio regime punctuated only by lunch and tea breaks.
Untitled [Fool’s Gold], 2004, oil on canvas, 164.5cm x 204.5cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
“He’d finish just in time for the 6pm news”, Barbara Smith told me.
Barbara is Smith’s daughter and the manager of his legacy.
“Dad was always driven by what he saw as the challenges in his work and resolving them in the studio.”
Smith was also heavily self-critical. He admitted to destroying more than half of his artistic output – completely repainting or throwing away paintings that didn’t meet his vision.
At the age of 90, ever the self-critic and despite his successes, he said to his family: “You can’t change styles like I did and hope to get anywhere.”
Forms that express deeper feelings
Smith converted to Catholicism in the 1950s and was a life-long consumer of art-history and philosophy. These tendencies can be seen in his 1950s religious paintings and later abstract works.
The Scourged Christ, 1956, oil on composition board, 116cm x 85cm. Gift of Hugh Jamieson, Penrith Regional Gallery Collection.
In the 1950s he found inspiration in the works of the Fauvist painter Georges Rouault, and later in the works of Alfred Manessier. We see these influences in the bold outlines and church-window-esque colours used in paintings such as The Raising of Lazarus (1953) and The Scourged Christ (1956).
Smith’s later large abstract paintings such as Eternity I (1998), Orange Dawn (1999) and Untitled (Fools Gold) (2004) are evidence of his artistic quest to “find forms that express the deeper feelings” he wanted to convey.
Orange Dawn, 1999, oil on canvas, 171cm x 213cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
Smith was also skilled in portraiture, as evidenced by his depictions of fellow artists Leonard Hessing, Norman Lindsay, Louis James and Hector Gilliland, as well as his Archibald-winning portrait of Rudy Komon.
His luminous Portrait of Diane (1998), a family friend and patron, is a particularly powerful image which Smith described as his Mona Lisa.
Portrait of Diane, 1998, oil on canvas, 69cm x 50cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
It’s easy to see why writer and critic Paul McGillick argues Smith should be considered “one of Australia’s most visionary portraitists”.
Yet, without exhibitions and dealers and auctioneers to champion him over the decades, Smith’s work has largely vanished from the public.
Then again, “not having exhibitions didn’t bother him too much, it was the painting and process that really mattered to him,” said Barbara.
An exhibit 40 years in the making
Luckily for posterity, a number of Smith’s masterpieces survived his destructive self-critique.
These works, which are now mostly privately held, will be on display at Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint. It is the first major exhibition of Smith’s work since the 1980s, and the first retrospective or survey of his work since his death in 2017.
“I’m sure Dad would have been extremely excited and honoured,” Barbara said.
Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint is showing at the Macquarie University Art Gallery from June 19 to August 1.
Tom Murray works for Macquarie University and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 18, 2025.
Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University Atlas Moth (_Attacus wardi_) Garry Sankowsky/flickr, CC BY When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals,
Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury Zhang Jianyong/Xinhua via Getty Images This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades. Yet, ironically, the
Why a US court allowed a dead man to deliver his own victim impact statement – via an AI avatar Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James D Metzger, Senior Lecturer in Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney Composite image: Arrington Watkins Architects / AI avatar: YouTube/StaceyWales, CC BY In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation. Horcasitas was
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”. But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning? What’s the difference anyway? What’s gastroenteritis?
Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University Rachel Moore From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes. Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge:
Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace ANALYSIS: By Matt Fitzpatrick, Flinders University In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat. The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding
Solomon Islanders safe but unable to leave Israel amid war on Iran RNZ Pacific The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining
We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney skynesher/Getty Images We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges. The most recent national survey
Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result
Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University The Conversation, CC BY-NC The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth. Productivity is essentially
How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney rarrarorro/Shutterstock The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it
Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Universal Pictures Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear
As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests. But there is arguably a
The story of the journalist on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, David Robie Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member. COMMENTARY: By Emma Page I was on the
As Israeli attacks draw tit-for-tat missile responses from Iran and shuts Haifa refinery, Gaza genocide continues Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation. The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced. Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they
View from the Hill: Cancelled Albanese-Trump meeting a setback on tariffs, AUKUS Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president. There was always a risk of derailment by outside events,
Decoding PNG leader Marape’s talks with French President Macron ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests. The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector. From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within
Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program. But Netanyahu has made clear another
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran. Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by
When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals, spiders and many many more. These creatures make us happy, pollinate flowers, keep soils healthy, clean water, build reefs, maintain oceans and bring colour and wonder to our homes, cities, farms and wild places.
When a mammal or bird goes extinct in Australia, it’s big news. But invertebrates have gone extinct much more frequently – and with much less attention. Since colonisation, an estimated 9,000 invertebrates have gone extinct – and one or two more go extinct every week.
Invertebrates face five big challenges: climate change, habitat destruction, natural resource extraction, pollution and invasive species. For the most part, efforts to conserve them are in their infancy in Australia, likely due to the historic undervaluing of smaller animals and little critters. There are shining exceptions such as the incredible conservation success of the Lord Howe Island stick insect, but such examples are vanishingly rare.
The good news? Because invertebrates live everywhere, the opportunity to help is often literally on our doorsteps. Simple actions can help, such as planting native species, leaving logs in the garden and avoiding insecticides.
Meet some of the threatened one thousand
Threatened invertebrates live in every Australian state and territory and in our major cities. Of the almost 1,000 threatened species, 27% are snails and slugs, 25% are insects, 19% are corals, 17% are crayfish and 5% are spiders. Here are some you may come across.
Bogong moth (Agrotis infusa). These moths once filled the night skies in their billions. Now they’re listed as endangered because the cool alpine caves they rely on to escape summer heat are warming with climate change. These migratory moths fly across southern Australia, navigating to their mountain refuges each summer using the stars and earth’s magnetic field. Help map their migration to protect them.
Bogong moths migrate to cool caves in the Australian Alps in summer. Kate Umbers, CC BY
Atlas moth (Attacus wardi). This giant tropical moth with a 22 cm wingspan is now considered vulnerable due to habitat destruction and introduced weeds. If you live near Darwin, planting the native Atlas Croton tree will help feed its very hungry caterpillars.
Mangrove ant-blue butterfly (Acrodipsas illidgei). These endangered butterflies lay eggs on grey mangrove trees home to acrobat ants (Crematogaster species), which carry the eggs into its nests. When the caterpillars hatch, they eat ant larvae while in turn nourishing the ant colony with sugary secretions. Mangrove destruction, pesticide runoff and threats to their ant partners pose real threats. Protecting mangroves in southeast Queensland and reporting sightings of butterflies and ants on iNaturalist will help.
Sydney Hawk dragonfly (Austrocordulia leonardi). This strikingly coloured endangered dragonfly is largely found in Sydney. Changes to local waterways and the deep pools its aquatic larvae need threaten the species. Restoring local waterways will help.
Dural land snails (Pommerhelix duralensis). These endangered snails are found only in north-western Sydney and the lower Blue Mountains. They cruise through leaves and rocks munching on fungi and helping add compost to forest soils. You might catch a glimpse during light rain. Help them by leaving large patches of undisturbed native undergrowth – habitat loss poses the biggest threat.
Hairy bee (Leioproctus douglasiellus). This critically endangered burrowing bee lives only in and around Perth. Its numbers have fallen due to habitat loss and pesticides. Leaving patches of open soil in your garden and planting shallow flowers can help these short-tongued bees get nectar.
Giant Gippsland earthworm (Megascolides australis). This iconic earthworm can grow up to 1.5 metres long. It only lives in a patch of southern Gippsland in Victoria and is endangered in part due to farming practices such as ploughing. These gentle giants famously gurgle as they move through their tunnels keeping soil healthy. Local landholders can help by leaving patches of land along stream banks as worm conservation habitat.
Tasmanian live-bearing sea stars (Parvulastra vivipara). Most sea stars lay eggs. Not this species, which gives birth to live young. They’re endangered because they live in intertidal waters of south-eastern Tasmania affected by shoreline development and invasive species. Look carefully and you might see one as it grazes on algae-covered rocks. Join local events to tackle invasive species and log any sightings on iNaturalist.
Invertebrates bring us delight and wonder. Here’s how we can help those in trouble.
Plant flowers. Providing food for pollinators and other wonderful flower-visiting insects can help year-round.
Keep part of your garden a bit wild. If you leave logs, leaves and open soil in your garden, you make space for shiny beetles, singing crickets, native bees and other ground-dwellers.
The creek is beautiful. Help restore waterways, make a pond, learn about local water bugs and support local wetlands.
Be clever with pest control. Avoid snail baits and cancel regular broad-spectrum sprays, as these can harm many non-target species. Use critter-friendly alternatives to protect the whole food chain.
Let the stars shine. Switch off lights at night if safe or close your curtains to help nocturnal creatures such as moths and orb-weaving spiders.
Log your sightings. Conservation scientists need as much data as possible on invertebrates to understand how they are doing out there. Upload your bug photos to iNaturalist.
Kate Umbers receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Commonwealth DCCEEW, Hermon Slade Foundation, and Holsworth Foundation. She is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia, Biodiversity Council, co-chair of the IUCN Grasshopper Specialist Group, and is on the Conservation Committee for the Australian Entomological Society.
Kenny Wolfe is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Megan Head is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Shawan Chowdhury is affiliated with Monash University and Invertebrates Australia.
Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia
This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades.
Yet, ironically, the accompanying celebrations and the legislation that declares Matariki a public holiday miss the mark. They fail to promote and protect the country’s dark skies, which are crucial to seeing the stars in this small constellation.
While the law recognises Matariki’s significance to Māori culture and heritage as the beginning of the Māori New Year, it does not acknowledge that it is predicated on the visual presence of the star cluster.
Even where Matariki is not visible owing to weather conditions, the ability to see other celestial markers is important (for example Puanga/Puaka, also known as Rigel). Light pollution is a visual barrier to experiencing these important stars.
Since the passage of the legislation, local councils across the country have marked the public holiday with various light displays. This year will be no different, with illuminated artworks, projections and lightboxes at Matariki festivals in several cities.
Tirama Mai (bringing the light) will return to Ōtautahi Christchurch with brightly lit displays. Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland will see some of its most popular sites, including Queen Street, lit up as part of Tūrama, a series of large-scale, illuminated art installations.
After initially ignoring Māori advice that fireworks are not appropriate to celebrate Matariki, many local councils have now abandoned them. But festivities will no doubt continue to contribute to light pollution and ignore the need to protect dark skies at night.
These ill-conceived festivities are not surprising given the legislation fails to even mention dark skies. This is exacerbated by New Zealand emerging as a major player in the increasingly commercialised space sector which has developed rapidly since the first rocket lifted off from Mahia peninsula in 2017.
Much of Aotearoa’s landmass has some of the darkest skies on the planet. Based on land area, 74% of the North Island and 93% of the South Island rest beneath night skies that are either pristine or degraded only near the horizon. Indeed, the area affected by direct illumination is very low.
Yet, intense urbanisation means only 3% of the population regularly experience such skies. About half of all New Zealanders can no longer see the Milky Way in winter.
At present, there is no explicit domestic law protecting dark skies, nor any international laws. The law declaring Matariki a public holiday missed an important opportunity to provide such protection.
To address this issue, a petition was presented to parliament in January 2023 calling for national legislation to promote and protect dark skies. In March this year, parliament responded it would not take further actions “due to other priorities on the government’s resource management reform work programme”.
This is not surprising. Nevertheless, we call on the government to develop legislation for the governance of dark skies in Aotearoa New Zealand that incorporates mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge).
While there are a variety of ways this could be achieved, controlling light pollution is the crux of the issue. Light pollution emanates both from unmitigated urban lighting as well as the expansion of satellite constellations, which is steadily forming a global net of moving points of light in space.
An incremental approach could be a government-backed education programme to raise awareness of light pollution, followed by the development of a national policy for its control. An amendment to the Matariki public holiday law could then follow in recognition of the national interest.
We are aware the challenges ahead are many. Yet, protecting dark skies is vital from a Māori perspective. Practically, such protections are crucial to the enjoyment and honouring of Matariki as we continue to risk disconnection from one of our most important natural features.
Shea Esterling receives funding from the Borrin Foundation.
William Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When it was time for Horcasitas to be sentenced by a judge, Pelkey’s family knew they wanted to make a statement – known as a “victim impact statement” – explaining to the judge who Pelkey had been when he was alive.
They found they couldn’t get the words right.
The solution for them turned out to be having Pelkey speak for himself by creating an AI-generated avatar that used his face and voice, allowing him to “talk” directly to the judge.
In Arizona, a judge allowed an AI avatar of a deceased crime victim to “read” an impact statement.
This marked the first time a United States court had allowed an AI-generated victim to make this kind of beyond-the-grave statement, and likely the first time something like this had occurred anywhere in the world.
How was the AI avatar made and received?
The AI avatar was created by Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales and her husband Tim, with Stacey writing the words “spoken” by Pelkey – words that were not taken from anything he actually said when he was alive but based on what she believed he would have said.
Stacey Wales explained how she came to create an AI video of her brother to allow him to deliver his own victim impact statement.
The avatar was created by using samples of Pelkey’s voice from videos that had been recorded before his death and photos the family had of him – specifically a photo used at his funeral.
In the video, Pelkey “says” he believes in forgiveness and “a God who forgives”, and that “in another life” he and Horcasitas could have been friends.
After the video was played in court, Judge Todd Lang, who had allowed the AI statement to be delivered, stated he “loved” the AI, adding he “heard the forgiveness” contained in it. He further stated he felt the forgiveness was “genuine”.
Judge Todd Lang’s reaction to Chris Pelkey’s AI victim impact statement.
In the end, Horcasitas was sentenced to the maximum of ten-and-a-half years – more than the nine years the prosecution was seeking but equal to what Pelkey’s family asked for in their own victim impact statements.
Could this happen in Australia?
In general, court rules are similar across Australian states and territories and it would be unlikely these technological advances would be acceptable in Australian sentencing courts.
These rules allow victims or their families to read their statement to courts, but this is limited to written statements usually edited by the prosecution, although victims may include drawings and photos where approved.
A victim will generally read their own statement to the court. However, where the victim has died, family members can make a statement speaking to their own trauma and loss.
Sometimes victims ask the prosecutor to read their statement, or the prosecutor merely hands over a written statement to the judge.
To date, no Australian court has permitted family members to speak for the deceased victim personally and family members are generally limited to describing harms they have directly suffered.
Victims may also be cross-examined by defence counsel on the statements’ content.
Creating an AI avatar would be time-consuming and expensive for prosecutors to edit. Cross-examination by the defence would be impossible.
Compared to the US, there is generally far less tolerance in Australian courts for dramatic readings of statements or using audio-visual materials.
In the US, victims enjoy greater freedom to invoke emotions, explore personal narratives and even show videos of the deceased, all to give the court a better sense of the victim as a person.
The use of an AI avatar, therefore, is not too far from what is already allowed in most US courts.
Despite these allowances, there is still concern the emotional impact of a more direct statement from an AI victim could be used to manipulate the court by putting words into the victim’s virtual mouth.
As can be seen in the Arizona sentencing, Judge Lang was clearly affected by the emotions generated by the AI Pelkey.
Changes to Australian law would be needed to ban use of AI recordings specifically. But even without such changes, Australian sentencing practice is already so restrictive as to essentially preclude such technology.
It seems Australia is some ways from joining Arizona in allowing an AI avatar of a deceased person speaking from “beyond the grave”.
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.
If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”.
But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning?
What’s the difference anyway?
What’s gastroenteritis?
Gastroenteritis, or gastro for short, is a gut infection caused by a virus, bacterium or other microbe.
The gut is teeming with cells including healthy microbes and the cells lining the gut. But when viruses, bacteria and other microbes start to invade your gut, they colonise, build up in large numbers and eventually cause the cells lining the gut to inflame. The “-itis” at the end of gastroenteritis means inflammation.
So where do these gastro-causing microbes come from? Eating contaminated food is often the source.
However you can acquire these microbes in other ways. For example, if you touch a surface where someone sick from viral gastroenteritis had vomited on, that virus could transfer to your hands. And if your hands touched your mouth, you in turn could contract viral gastroenteritis.
What’s food poisoning?
Food poisoning refers to getting sick from eating food contaminated with chemicals, microbes or toxins.
For example if you ate food contaminated with insecticides or methyl alcohol (methanol) that would count as food poisoning. If you ate puffer fish or poisonous mushrooms that would count too. But food poisoning doesn’t include the effects of eating a food you’re allergic to.
The vast majority of food poisonings are as a result of food contaminated by microbes and their toxins. When you eat or drink them it’s like a missile strike. The toxins in particular can rapidly cause inflammation and damage the lining of the gut.
Food poisoning (or foodborne gastroenteritis) is also common in Australia. It accounts for about one-third of all cases of gastroenteritis or an estimated 5.4 million cases every year.
How can we tell the two apart?
Both gastroenteritis and food poisoning have symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever and headaches. But these symptoms can come on in different ways.
Viral gastroenteritis, such as with norovirus, usually causes symptoms 24–48 hours after exposure, which can last for one to two days.
But food poisoning after eating microbial toxins can come on very quickly. For example, toxins from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus can cause symptoms within 30 minutes of eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat. Fortunately, symptoms usually get better within 24 hours.
Symptoms don’t always come on so quickly in all cases of bacterial food poisoning. For example, it can take as long as 70 days between exposure to Listeria and symptoms occurring, although, on average it’s about three weeks. This long incubation period can make it difficult to work out if a particular food is responsible for someone getting sick.
As a general guide food poisoning occurs quite quickly (within hours of eating contaminated food) while gastroenteritis can take a day or more after eating to get sick. But there is no hard and fast rule.
It can take weeks from eating soft cheese contaminated with Listeria before you have symptoms. In Green/Shutterstock
How do I prevent them?
The same precautions when handling food apply to preventing both gastroenteritis and food poisoning. These steps not only lower your risk of being affected in the first place, they lower your risk of you infecting others.
Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before preparing food. Use separate cutting boards and utensils for raw and cooked foods to help avoid cross-contamination. Cook food thoroughly and store it at safe temperatures.
Gastroenteritis can involve transmission of microbes through means other than food, for instance, via poo on your hands if you don’t wash your hands after using the toilet or after changing a child’s nappy. So wash your hands afterwards.
To prevent others from becoming sick, make sure you quickly disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. First, put on gloves and wash surfaces with hot water and a detergent. Then disinfect using household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite.
How can I get better?
Treating both gastroenteritis and food poisoning focuses on preventing dehydration and relieving symptoms.
To avoid dehydration, drink plenty of fluids. For moderate or severe cases, you can buy commercial oral rehydration solution from a pharmacy.
You can also make your own oral rehydration solution by adding 6 teaspoons of sugar, ½ teaspoon of salt and ½ teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to a litre of water. You can splash in some cordial for taste.
If symptoms are severe or persist you should see your GP or go to the emergency department.
Vincent Ho 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.
From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes.
Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge: how to get oxygen, heat and nutrients to every part of their bodies efficiently.
Our new study, published today in Royal Society Open Science, shows that sharks follow a centuries-old mathematical rule – the two-thirds scaling law – that predicts how body shape changes with size. This tells us something profound about how evolution works – and why size really does matter.
What is the two-thirds scaling law?
The basic idea is mathematical: surface area increases with the square of body length, while volume increases with the cube. That means surface area increases more slowly than volume, and the ratio between the two – crucial for many biological functions – decreases with size.
This matters because many essential life processes happen at the surface: gas exchange in the lungs or gills, such as to take in oxygen or release carbon dioxide, but also heat loss through skin and nutrient uptake in the gut.
These processes depend on surface area, while the demands they must meet – such as the crucial task of keeping the body supplied with oxygen – depend on volume. So, the surface area-to-volume ratio shapes how animals function.
Whale sharks are as big as buses, while dwarf lanternsharks (pictured here) are as small as a human hand. Chip Clark/Smithsonian Institution
Despite its central role in biology, this rule has only ever been rigorously tested in cells, tissues and small organisms such as insects.
Until now.
Why sharks?
Sharks might seem like an unlikely group for testing an old mathematical theory, but they’re actually ideal.
For starters, they span a huge range of sizes, from the tiny dwarf lantern shark (about 20 centimetres long) to the whale shark (which can exceed 20 metres). They also have diverse shapes and lifestyles – hammerheads, reef-dwellers, deep-sea hunters – each posing different challenges for physiology and movement.
Plus, sharks are charismatic, ecologically important and increasingly under threat. Understanding their biology is both scientifically valuable and important for conservation.
Sharks are ecologically important but are increasingly under threat. Rachel Moore
How did we test the rule?
We used high-resolution 3D models to digitally measure surface area and volume in 54 species of sharks. These models were created using open-source CT scans and photogrammetry, which involves using photographs to approximate a 3D structure. Until recently, these techniques were the domain of video game designers and special effects artists, not biologists.
We refined the models in Blender, a powerful 3D software tool, and extracted surface and volume data for each species.
Then we applied phylogenetic regression – a statistical method that accounts for shared evolutionary history – to see how closely shark shapes follow the predictions of the two-thirds rule.
Sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, as seen in this 3D representation. Joel Gayford et al
What did we find?
The results were striking: sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, with surface area scaling to body volume raised to the power of 0.64 – just a 3% difference from the theoretical 0.67.
This suggests something deeper is going on. Despite their wide range of forms and habitats, sharks seem to converge on the same basic body plan when it comes to surface area and volume. Why?
One explanation is that what are known as “developmental constraints” – limits imposed by how animals grow and form in early life – make it difficult, or too costly, for sharks to deviate from this fundamental pattern.
Changing surface area-to-volume ratios might require rewiring how tissues are allocated during embryonic development, something that evolution appears to avoid unless absolutely necessary.
But why does it matter?
This isn’t just academic. Many equations in biology, physiology and climate science rely on assumptions about surface area-to-volume ratios.
These equations are used to model how animals regulate temperature, use oxygen, and respond to environmental stress. Until now, we haven’t had accurate data from large animals to test those assumptions. Our findings give researchers more confidence in using these models – not just for sharks, but potentially for other groups too.
As we face accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss, understanding how animals of all sizes interact with their environments has never been more urgent.
This study, powered by modern imaging tech and some old-school curiosity, brings us one step closer to that goal.
Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society, as President.
Joel Gayford receives funding from the Northcote Trust.
The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran.
The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining regular contact with the students.
Ambassador Cornelius Walegerea said that given the volatile nature of the current situation, the safety of their citizens in Israel — particularly the students — remained their top priority.
“Once the airport reopens and it is deemed safe for them to travel, the students will be able to return home.”
The five Solomon Islands students have undertaken agricultural training at the Arava International Centre for Agriculture in Israel since September 2024.
The students completed their training on June 5 and were scheduled to return home on June 17.
The students have been advised to strictly follow instructions issued by local authorities and to continue observing all precautionary safety measures.
Ministry updates The ministry will continue to provide updates as the situation develops.
Its travel advisory, issued the day Israel attacked Iran last Friday, said the ministry “wishes to advise all citizens not to travel to Israel and the region”.
Citizens studying in Israel were told they “should now make every effort to leave Israel”.
Meanwhile, a friend of a New Zealander stuck in Iran said the NZ government needed to help provide safe passage, and that the advice so far had been “vague and lacking any substance whatsover”.
The woman told RNZ the advice from MFAT until yesterday had been to “stay put”, before an evacuation notice was issued.
MFAT declined interview MFAT declined an interview, but told RNZ it had heard from a small number of New Zealanders seeking advice about how to depart from Iran and Israel.
It would not provide any further detail regarding those individuals.
MFAT said the airspace was currently closed over both countries, which would likely continue.
The agency understood departure via land border crossings had been taking place, but that carried risks and New Zealanders “should only do so if they feel it is safe”.
Meanwhile, the NZ government said visitors from war zones in the Middle East could stay in New Zealand until it was safe for them to return home.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney
We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges.
The most recent national survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found nearly two in five (38.8%) 16- to 24-year-olds experienced symptoms of a mental disorder in the previous 12 months.
This was substantially higher than the last time the survey was run in 2007, when the figure was 26%.
We’ve published a new study today looking at the rates of mental health problems among Australian high school students specifically. We found almost one in four high school students report mental health problems by Year 10 – and things are worse for girls and gender-diverse teens.
Tracking teens’ mental health
In our study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, we looked at mental health symptoms in more than 6,500 Australian teens, and how these symptoms changed over time.
We surveyed high school students from 71 schools annually from Year 7 (age 12/13) to Year 10 (age 15/16). Our sample, while not nationally representative, includes a large cross-section of schools in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
We found symptoms of mental health problems increased steadily over time:
in Year 7, 17% of students we surveyed reported symptoms which met the criteria for probable depression, increasing to 28% by Year 10
some 14% of students reported high psychological distress in Year 7, rising to 24% in Year 10
the proportion reporting moderate-to-severe anxiety grew from 16% in Year 7 to 24% by Year 10.
Which teens were hardest hit?
We looked at how mental health symptoms over time were linked to different social factors, such as gender, cultural background and family affluence. We also looked at school factors, such as how advantaged a student’s school is.
We found clear differences in mental health by gender, affluence, and school advantage. Girls and gender diverse teens had higher symptoms in Year 7 and a steeper rise in symptoms over the four years, when compared to their male peers.
By Year 10, compared to males, females had average symptom scores that were 88% higher for depression, 34% higher for anxiety, and 55% higher for psychological distress (in models that adjusted for other factors).
Again compared to males and in adjusted models, gender diverse teens had symptom scores at Year 10 that were 121% higher for depression, 55% higher for anxiety, and 89% higher for psychological distress.
Teens from the least affluent families had 7% higher depressive symptoms than those from the most affluent families in adjusted models, while teens attending the least advantaged schools had 9% higher anxiety symptoms than teens attending the most advantaged schools.
We then examined how gender and affluence interacted to influence mental health. Girls in the lowest affluence group experienced heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms over and above the effects of affluence or gender alone.
This shows how multiple factors can stack up, creating greater risk of poor mental health for certain young people.
Gender-diverse teens were more likely to have poor mental health in our study. SeventyFour/Shutterstock
While we were able to explore a wide range of factors, a limitation of our study was that we could not examine all social factors that may impact mental health. For example, we couldn’t ascertain the potential differences experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander teens or those living in remote and very remote areas.
How does this data compare to other studies?
Recent Australian data from similar-aged adolescents is scarce. However, the 2015 Young Minds Matter study found 14.4% of 12- to 17-year-olds experienced a mental disorder in the prior 12 months.
The higher rates of mental health challenges we observed in our study are likely consistent with recent evidence suggesting “cohort effects” – where each generation has worse mental health than the one before it. Research is still investigating the reasons behind these trends, with avenues of inquiry spanning everything from social media to climate change. But it appears no single factor is to blame.
The COVID pandemic has also played a role, with young people seeming to be hit particularly hard by mental health impacts of the pandemic.
Notably, the gender differences between girls and boys are supported by data from global studies, showing this is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon.
What can we do about the gender divide in mental health?
With a mental health-care system stretched beyond capacity, it’s crucial we prevent and address mental health problems early. While this requires a multilayered approach, aiming to reduce these gender inequities in mental health is an important place to start.
While outside the scope of this study, a growing field of research is interrogating why there are gender differences in mental health. Factors identified include:
These areas indicate avenues for potential solutions, but addressing these factors requires wraparound investment.
Promisingly, many of these factors are mentioned in the National Women’s Health Strategy. With women’s health a central platform for the Albanese government’s election campaign, hopefully we will see more investment in research and policy to address these issues.
Importantly, our study found gender inequities in mental health were even more stark for gender diverse teens, so focus should not solely be on girls and women.
We must design solutions with young people
Adolescent mental health isn’t something we can tackle with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need strategies that are meaningfully co-designed with young people themselves. Initiatives can then be tailored to meet their unique needs and reflect their diverse experiences.
When we work directly with priority groups, such as girls, gender diverse teens and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, we can offer safe, culturally appropriate and affirming solutions. This helps teens feel seen, heard and supported – all key ingredients for better mental health.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.
Scarlett Smout receives funding from the BHP Foundation and provides academic support for Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank.
Katrina Champion receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and via University of Sydney Horizon Fellowship.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University
Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images
Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result in 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year – almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions.
Emissions embedded in Australia’s exports do not count towards our national emissions targets. But they contribute to climate change – and they’re the reason for Australia’s international reputation as a fossil-fuel economy.
On the bright side, Australia boasts huge potential for low-cost renewable energy and a knack for resource industries.
We can, and should, become a “renewable energy superpower”. This term refers to the potential for Australia to use its bountiful renewable energy resources to make commodities such as iron, ammonia and other products and fuels in “green” or low-emissions ways.
So how does Australia give salience to this idea on the global stage, while our fossil fuel exports continue? The solution could be a new net-zero target for Australia, in which emissions from green exports are tallied up against those from fossil fuel exports.
Australia can become a renewable energy superpower. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Reinvigorating Australia’s climate policy
If the clean energy transition eventuates, green exports from Australia will rise over time. This will help reduce the use of coal, gas and oil elsewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, coal exports – and later, gas exports – will fall. This will happen irrespective of Australia’s policies, as the world economy decarbonises and demand for fossil fuels slows.
At some point, we can expect emissions avoided by our green commodity exports to surpass those from remaining coal and gas exports. Australia would then reach what could be termed “net-zero export emissions”.
Adopting this net-zero target as a national policy would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s green-export ambitions. It could also invigorate Australia’s climate policy and boost investor confidence.
A different approach would be to set targets only for green exports, and this could be how we get started. Ultimately, a net-zero target wrapping up both green and fossil-fuel exports would speak most directly to the goal of tackling climate change, and is likely to have more impact on the international stage.
A net-zero export target would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s ambition to develop green export industries. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Getting to net-zero exports
The below chart shows an illustrative decline in emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG (liquified natural gas) exports, out to 2050.*
Authors’ calculations based on Australian Energy Update 2024, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2024, IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
It’s hard to pin down when Australia might reach net-zero exports. It depends on several factors. How quickly will the cost of clean energy and green-commodity technologies fall? How competitively can Australia produce green goods compared to other nations? What policies will be adopted in Australia and overseas – and will they work?
The magnitudes are sobering. Take iron, for example. Australia currently exports 900 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This is processed overseas to about 560 million tonnes of iron.
To fully compensate for emissions currently embedded in Australia’s coal and gas exports, Australia would need to process about the same amount of green iron – around 550 million tonnes – on home soil every year.
Achieving this would require keeping iron ore production at current levels and processing it all in Australia, which is unlikely to be realistic.
Thankfully, the task of reaching net-zero export emissions will be smaller in future, as global coal and gas demand falls. But exactly how this will translate to Australian exports is highly uncertain.
In this case, embedded emissions from Australia’s coal and gas exports would be about 360 million tonnes in 2050. This includes about 120 million tonnes from LNG exports – much of it locked in by the extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project off Western Australia.
Hypothetically, the 360 million tonnes of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports. They include 102 million tonnes of green iron (saving 204 million tonnes of CO₂), and 11 million tonnes of greenammonia (saving about 23 million tonnes of CO₂), and the remainder covered by a combination of green aluminium, silicon, methanol and transport fuels.
Judgement calls would be needed about which commodities to include in the target. The composition of green exports suggested above is akin to assumptions about Australia’s potential global market share outlined by The Superpower Institute.
Importantly, it’s hard to predict with certainty the greenhouse gas emissions displaced elsewhere in the world by Australia’s green exports. So, the estimates should be understood as broad illustrations, and not as exact as the accounting used to calculate countries’ domestic emissions.
The precise year chosen for reaching a net-zero target for export emissions may well be less important than the commitment that, at some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. This would establish the notion that Australia has the capacity and willingness to help the world decarbonise.
At some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. David Gray/Getty Images
A positive agenda for change
The export target could be part of Australia’s updated emissions pledge due to be submitted to the United Nations by September this year. The pledge, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is required by signatories to the Paris Agreement.
Each nation is expected to detail its national emissions target for 2035. But nations can make additional pledges towards the world’s climate change effort. You could call it an “NDC+”.
So Australia could outline an indicative goal for net-zero exports – perhaps alongside other pledges such as leveraging climate change finance for developing countries, or helping our Pacific neighbours adapt to climate change impacts.
As a large fossil fuels exporter, Australia would earn kudos for showing it has a positive agenda for change.
And if Australia wins the bid to host the COP31 climate conference next year, a plan to reduce export emissions could be a major rallying point.
* Underlying data for the chart showing an expected decline in future emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG exports:
Exports for 2035 and 2050: this assumes a trend aligned with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario, as outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2024. Note the percentage changes from 2023 to 2035 and 2050 for coal (-45% and -73% respectively) and for LNG (+9% and -47% respectively.) These figures do not distinguish between steam coal for power and metallurgical coal.
Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel.
Annette Zou works on research projects on climate policy and decarbonisation and has previously worked with The Superpower Institute
The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth.
Productivity is essentially the art of earning more while working less and is critical for driving our standard of living higher.
The Productivity Commission, tasked with figuring out how to get Australia’s sluggish productivity back on track, is pushing hard for corporate tax cuts as a key part of their plan for building a “dynamic and resilient economy”.
The idea? Lower taxes will attract more foreign investment, get businesses spending again and eventually boost workers’ productivity.
Commission chair, Danielle Wood, said last week while the commission wanted to create more investment opportunities, it was aware this would hit the budget bottom line:
So we’re looking at ways to spur investment while finding other ways we might be able to pick up revenue in the system.
The general company tax rate is currently 30% for large firms, and there’s a reduced rate of 25% for smaller companies with an overall turnover of less than A$50 million.
What the textbooks and other countries tell us
The Productivity Commission’s theory makes sense: if you make capital cheaper and you should get more of it flowing in.
A larger stock of capital means there is more to invest in Australian workers. This should make us more productive and help boost workers’ wages. And looking overseas, the evidence mostly backs this up.
A meta-analysis of 25 studies covering the US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland,
Denmark, Portugal and Finland found every percentage point you slice off the corporate tax rate brings in about 3.3% more foreign direct investment.
Other research shows multinational companies really do move their operations to places with lower tax rates. This explains why we’re seeing this race to the bottom across Europe and North America, with countries constantly trying to undercut each other.
Research on location decisions shows how multinationals reshuffle their operations based on effective average tax rates.
Even within the United States, a US study found increases in corporate tax rates lead to big reductions in employment and wage income. However, corporate tax cuts can boost economic activity – though typically only if they are implemented during recessions.
Australia’s limited track record
Here in Australia we don’t have much local evidence to go on, and what we do have is pretty puzzling.
This matters because Australia’s corporate tax system has some unique features that may make overseas evidence less relevant. We have dividend imputation (franking credits), different treatment of capital gains, access to immediate reimbursement for some small business expenses and complex capitalisation rules that limit debt deductions for multinationals.
The Federal Government is focussed on improving productivity. In this five-part series, we’ve asked leading experts what that means for the economy, what’s holding us back and their best ideas for reform.
A study by a group of Australian National University economists looked at how the tax system affects business investment. They examined the [2015 and 2016 corporate tax cuts] for small businesses using data on business investment from the Australian Bureau of Statistics combined with tax data from the Australian Tax Office.
The findings were mixed. After the 2015 cut, firms already investing in buildings and equipment spent more — that is, the policy boosted investment only at the intensive margin.
By contrast, there was no evidence it enticed firms that had not been investing to start doing so. The follow-up cut in 2016 had even less bite. Its estimated effect on investment was so small it is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
It remains unclear why the previous corporate tax reductions largely failed to produce a measurable increase in investment. Perhaps the tax cut itself was simply too modest. Or the available data was too volatile to capture its effects.
But it runs contrary to what economic theory tells us to expect. This should give us pause for thought.
The big questions nobody can answer yet
For politicians thinking about another round of corporate tax cuts, this creates an uncomfortable situation. We’ve got solid evidence from overseas it works, but only one weak data point from Australia, plus a lot of head-scratching about why the second cut didn’t move the dial.
Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has the in-house expertise to further investigate this question.
Before we make further cuts to the company tax rate, we should have an in-depth study of these two tax cuts replicating and extending the previous work to see what effect – if any – they had on investment, employment, productivity and Australian living standards.
Until we can solve these puzzles, Australia’s debate over corporate tax rates will keep spinning its wheels. Much like our national productivity itself.
Isaac Gross 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 tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination”.
Foreign investors have already been rattled by Trump’s upending of the global trade system. The eruption of war in the Middle East would usually lead to “flight to safety” buying of the US dollar, but the dollar has barely budged. That suggests US assets are not seen as the safe haven they used to be.
Greg Combet, chair of Australia’s own sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, outlined many of the new risks arising from US policies in a speech on Tuesday.
As investors turn cautious on the US, at some point the surging US debt pile will become unsustainable. That could risk a financial crisis. But at what point does that happen?
The public sector holds a range of debt
When talking about the sustainability of US government debt, we have to distinguish between total debt and public debt.
Public debt is owed to individuals, companies, foreign governments and investors. This accounts for about 80% of total US debt. The remainder is intra-governmental debt held by government agencies and the Federal Reserve.
Public debt is a more correct measure of US government debt. And it is much less than the headline total government debt amount that is frequently quoted, which is running at US$36 trillion or 121% of GDP.
Are there limits to government debt?
Governments are not like households. They can feasibly roll over debt indefinitely and don’t technically need to repay it, unlike a personal credit card. And countries such as the US that issue debt in their own currency can’t technically default unless they choose to.
Debt also serves a useful role. It is the main way a government funds infrastructure projects. It is an important channel for monetary policy, because the US Federal Reserve sets the benchmark interest rate that affects borrowing costs across the economy. And because the US government issues bonds, known as Treasuries, to finance the debt, this is an important asset for investors.
There is probably some limit to the amount of debt the US government can issue. But we don’t really know what this amount is, and we won’t know until we get there. Additionally, the US’s reserve currency status, due to the US dollar’s dominant role in international finance, gives the US government more leeway than other governments.
Interest costs are surging
What is important is the government’s ability to service its debt – that is, to pay the interest cost. This depends on two components: growth in economic activity, and the interest rate on government debt.
If economic growth on average is higher than the interest rate, then the government’s effective interest cost is negative and it could sustainably carry its existing debt burden.
The interest cost of US government debt has surged recently following a series of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation.
The US government is now spending more on interest payments than on defence – about US$882 billion annually. This will soon start crowding out spending in other areas, unless taxes are raised or further spending cuts made.
Recent policy decisions not helping
The turmoil caused by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and heightened uncertainty about future government policy are expected to weaken US economic growth and raise inflation. This, coupled with the recent credit downgrade of US government debt by ratings agency Moody’s, is likely to put upward pressure on US interest rates, further increasing the servicing cost of US government debt.
Moody’s cited concerns about the growth of US federal debt. This comes as the US House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts indefinitely while slashing social spending. This has caused some to question the sustainability of the US government’s fiscal position.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add a further US$3 trillion to government debt over the ten years to 2034, increasing debt to 124% of GDP. And this would increase to US$4.5 trillion over ten years and take debt to 128% of GDP if some tax initiatives were made permanent.
Also troubling is Section 899 of the bill, known as the “revenge tax”. This controversial provision raises the tax payable by foreign investors and could further deter foreign investment, potentially making US government debt even less attractive.
A compromised Federal Reserve is the next risk
The passing of the tax and spending bill is unlikely to cause a financial crisis in the US. But the US could be entering into a period of “fiscal dominance”, which is just as concerning.
In this situation, the independence of the Federal Reserve might be compromised if it is pressured to support the US government’s fiscal position. It would do this by keeping interest rates lower than otherwise, or buying government debt to support the government instead of targeting inflation. Trump has already been putting pressure on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, demanding he cut rates immediately.
This could lead to much higher inflation in the US, as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, and more recently in Argentina and Turkey.
Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959)
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney
Universal Pictures
Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear of the unseen is rooted in our survival instincts as a species.
Cinematic sound and music taps into these somewhat unsettling instincts – and this is exactly what director Steven Spielberg and composer John Williams achieved in the iconic 1975 thriller Jaws. The sound design and musical score work in tandem to confront the audience with a mysterious killer animal.
In what is arguably the film’s most iconic scene, featuring beach swimmers’ legs flailing underwater, the shark remains largely unseen – yet the sound perfectly conveys the threat at large.
Creating tension in a soundtrack
Film composers aim to create soundscapes that will profoundly move and influence their audience. And they express these intentions through the use of musical elements such as rhythm, harmony, tempo, form, dynamics, melody and texture.
In Jaws, the initial encounter with the shark opens innocently with the sound of an offshore buoy and its clanging bell. The scene is established both musically and atmospherically to evoke a sense of isolation for the two characters enjoying a late-night swim on an empty beach.
But once we hear the the low strings, followed by the central two-note motif played on a tuba, we know something sinister is afoot.
This compositional technique of alternating between two notes at an increasing speed has long been employed by composers, including by Antonín Dvořák in his 1893 work New World Symphony.
John Williams reportedly used six basses, eight cellos, four trombones and a tuba to create the blend of low frequencies that would go on to define his entire Jaws score.
The bass instruments emphasise the lower end of the musical frequency spectrum, evoking a dark timbre that conveys depth, power and intensity. String players can use various bowing techniques, such as staccato and marcato, to deliver dark and even menacing tones, especially in the lower registers.
Meanwhile, there is a marked absence of tonality in the repeating E–F notes, played with increasing speed on the tuba. Coupled with the intensifying dynamics in the instrumental blend, this accelerating two-note motif signals the looming danger before we even see it – tapping into our instinctive fear of the unknown.
The use of the two-note motif and lower-end orchestration characterises a composition style that aims to unsettle and disorientate the audience. Another example of this style can be heard in Bernard Herrmann’s car crash scene audio in North by Northwest (1959).
Similarly, in Sergei Prokofiev’s Scythian Suite, the opening of the second movement (Dance of the Pagan Gods) uses an alternating D#–E motif.
The elasticity of Williams’ motif allows the two notes to be played on different instruments throughout the soundtrack, exploring various timbral possibilities to induce a kaleidoscope of fear, panic and dread.
The psychology behind our response
What is it that makes the Jaws soundtrack so psychologically confronting, even without the visuals? Music scholars have various theories. Some suggest the two notes imitate the sound of human respiration, while others have proposed the theme evokes the heartbeat of a shark.
Williams explained his approach in an interview with the Los Angeles Times:
I fiddled around with the idea of creating something that was very … brainless […] Meaning something could be very repetitious, very visceral, and grab you in your gut, not in your brain. […] It could be something you could play very softly, which would indicate that the shark is far away when all you see is water. Brainless music that gets louder and gets closer to you, something is gonna swallow you up.
Williams plays with the audience’s emotions throughout the film’s score, culminating in the scene Man Against Beast – a celebration of thematic development and heightened orchestration.
The film’s iconic soundtrack has created a legacy that extends beyond the visual. And this suggests the score isn’t just a soundtrack – but a character in its own right.
By using music to reveal what is hidden, Williams creates an intense emotional experience rife with anticipation and tension. The score’s two-note motif showcases his genius – and serves as a sonic shorthand that has kept a generation behind the breakers of every beach.
Alison 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.
Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests.
But there is arguably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government’s increasing strategic entanglement with the United States – specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump.
It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against “positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China”.
Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US.
After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go “from strength to strength” during Trump’s second presidency.
To date, nothing seems to shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a “reliable” partner.
While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a “trade war”, the prime minister depicted the story as a “real media beat-up”. Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump’s America had “common strategic interests”.
Closer US ties
We can trace the National-led government’s closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024.
New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire.
The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in “pillar two” of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has “the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings”.
In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including:
Operation Olympic Defender for war fighting in space, a significant development for a relatively new space operator such as New Zealand
Project Overmatch, which seeks to revolutionise naval warfare through allied cooperation in advanced digital technology
and a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement with US ally the Philippines, which is locked in a dispute with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.
To be sure, New Zealand governments and US administrations have long had overlapping concerns about China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact.
Ardern’s successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China’s threat.
And the current government has condemned China’s comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands – a self-governing entity within the New Zealand’s realm – and expressed consternation about China’s recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea.
But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand’s. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America’s status as the dominant global power.
But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China’s threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past.
Not in NZ interests
Trump’s proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration’s disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand’s national interests.
Similarly, his sidelining of the UN’s humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand’s stated foreign policy positions.
And right now, Trump’s refusal to condemn Israel’s pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration’s indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to.
It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump’s apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia’s most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests.
A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington’s longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order.
In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon’s hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights.
Robert G. Patman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member.
COMMENTARY: By Emma Page
I was on the track maintenance team, on the middle level. We were mostly cleaning up the waterways. I was with my son Wilbur who’s 11, and he was there with his friend Frankie, who’s 12, and they were also knee deep in digging out all of the weeds.
It was my first time at Matauri Bay. One of the things it made me really think about, which is not only specific to the oceans campaign I work on, was really feeling for the first time what being part of Greenpeace as a community or a movement or family means and feels like.
David Robie’s tent talk about the Rainbow Warrior on the Rongelap voyage in May 1985 . . . the two men on the sheet screen are the late Senator Jetin Anjain (left) and Greenpeace campaigner Steve Sawyer who were key to the success of the relocation. Image: Greenpeace Aotearoa
Looking back 40 years David Robie gave us a really great presentation of what it was like on board the Rainbow Warrior as a freelance journalist on that final voyage in 1985. David is a journalist and was actually one of my journalism lecturers when I went to journalism school at AUT, like 15 plus years ago!
At that time on the Rainbow Warrior he was reporting on the journey to Rongelap and helping the people move from their island home.
When you’re hearing people like David talking about being on that last voyage and sharing those memories — then thinking about how all of us here now are continuing the work — and that in the future, there will be people who join and keep campaigning for oceans and for all the other issues that we work on — I had this really tangible feeling of how it all fits together.
The work goes behind us and before us – I think I described it in my reflection on the day, ‘looking back and moving forward’. And that it’s bigger than me right now or bigger than all of us right now.
Russel [Norman, executive director] said it in a way too, about feeling the challenge from the past when you’re looking at those photos of the people who were on that last voyage, and the really brave work that they did. You see them looking out at you and it does feel motivational, but also like a challenge to keep being courageous.
Dr David Robie’s talk about the Rainbow Warrior and Rongelap. Video: Greenpeace
We can get caught up in the everyday of trying to do something. And this was one of those moments where you get more of a bird’s eye view, and that felt significant.
Connecting with the people in the photos I think one of the most moving things was hearing David talk about the people in the photographs, making them come alive with the stories of the people and what they were like, including when he talked about his favourite photo that he thought best represented Fernando sitting on a boat with his camera in mid-conversation.
David has written in his book about being on the Rainbow Warrior (Eyes of Fire), putting it in the political context of the time.
He talked to us about the difficulties and all the challenges back 40 years ago, getting content to the media from a boat, and sending radio reports — how important it was to get the story out there.
The Greenpeace photographer — that was Fernando — would have to develop the photos himself on board, then transmit them to media outlets. He was one of the people who was key in getting the story of that final voyage to the media and to the wider public.
I found it interesting also talking with David about the different struggles for journalism training these days — there’s less outlets now to train as a journalist in New Zealand.
That’s because there’s less jobs and there’s so much pressure on the media at the moment. Lots of outlets closing down, people losing their jobs and then the impact of that in terms of being able to get stories out.
Emma Page is oceans communications lead for Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished with permission.
Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they have carried out 550 drone operations.
In response, Iran has issued a warning to evacuate the central offices of Israeli television channels 12 and 14.
An Israeli attack on a Red Crescent ambulance in Tehran resulted in the deaths of two relief workers.
Israel’s Finance Minister Belazel Smotrich, who is accused of being a war criminal and the target of sanctions by five countries including New Zealand, claims they have hit 800 targets in Iran, with aircraft flying freely in the nation’s airspace.
In the West Bank, the tension continues, with business continuing at a subdued level, everyone waiting to see how the situation will unfold.
Israel’s illegal siege continues, cutting off cities and villages from one another, while blocking ambulances and urgent medical access in several locations today.
Israeli and Iranian strikes are expected to continue, and potentially escalate, over the coming days.
Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues.
Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
Iranian missiles raining down on Tel Aviv as seen from the occupied West Bank. Image: CM screenshot APR
Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president.
There was always a risk of derailment by outside events, particularly when the scheduled get-together was late in the piece, rather than soon after the president’s arrival in Canada for the G7.
Nevertheless, the result is something of a debacle for Albanese.
The prime minister needs to meet the president. Pressing issues – tariffs, AUKUS and defence – require discussion at leadership level. Quite apart from having the two leaders, who’ve never met, establishing some personal relationship.
It would have been especially desirable for the prime minister to convey, at the highest level, Australia’s views on the importance of and progress on AUKUS, as the month-long US inquiry into the agreement begins. This inquiry, announced last week, is examining whether the pact serves the US’ interests.
It’s also difficult to see Australia being able to extract concessions on the US tariffs without a discussion between the leaders. Possibly something can be done in phone calls between the two. But they seem as rare as hen’s teeth.
The Albanese government’s spin is, no matter, there will be a chance for a meeting when Albanese goes to the US in September to address the United Nations leaders’ week. He can make a side trip to Washington.
Perhaps. But let’s wait to see the invitation to Washington. Many leaders are in the US at that time, wanting to get to the capital.
Anyway, it’s become increasingly clear Albanese is not keen on facing the now-risky Oval Office ritual. Trump may be in a bad mood. The US journalists present could be feral.
If Albanese hopes the meeting would be in New York, that would be at the whim of Trump’s schedule.
Looking back, whatever the counterarguments (that included the complication of an election campaign), the prime minister should have tried very hard to get to Trump earlier, including braving the Oval Office.
This is not because Australia should kowtow to the Americans, but because any Australian prime minister should engage, as soon as possible, with a new US administration, especially when the president is as volatile as this one.
When things slip, as they have now, it all becomes trickier to navigate.
Those with good memories might recall this is not the first time Albanese has found himself victim of a presidential no-show. In 2023, then president Joe Biden was supposed to come to Australia for the Quad, and address the federal parliament.
Because of a deadlock in negotiations over the US budget, the president didn’t make it. (Later he issued Albanese an invitation for an official visit to Washington, seen as compensation. Not a precedent Albanese should rely on.) The Biden no-show was a big inconvenience but no more, given the very positive relations between the Albanese government and that US administration.
Some in Labor would think about the Trump issue in domestic political terms – that given Australians don’t like Trump, it’s not that important whether there is a meeting. But that sort of approach is not in Australia’s national interests.
An exchange at the joint news conference Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who has a deal on tariffs) gave in Canada is instructive.
Question: On the AUKUS submarine agreement, is that still proceeding?
Keir Starmer: Yep, we’re proceeding with that. It’s a really important deal to both of us. I think the President is doing a review. We did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me.
Donald Trump: We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time. He’s slightly more liberal than I am, to put it mildly.
Starmer: I stand slightly on the left.
Trump: But for some reason, we get along.
Starmer: We make it work.
Somehow, Albanese needs to find a way to “make it work”.
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.
The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests.
The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of economic, security, and diplomatic priorities with PNG, taking full advantage of its position as the biggest, most strategically placed island player in the Pacific.
An examination of the key outcomes reveals a partnership of mutual benefit, reflecting both PNG’s strategic diversification and France’s own long-term ambitions as a Pacific power.
A primary driver is the shared economic rationale. From Port Moresby’s perspective, the partnership offers a clear path to economic diversification and resilience.
But many in PNG have been watching with keen interest and asking: how badly does PNG want this?
While Prime Minister James Marape offered France a Special Economic Zone in Port Moresby (SEZ) for French businesses, he also named the lookout at Port Moresby’s Variarata National Park after President Emmanuel Macron drawing the ire of many in the country.
The proposal to establish a SEZ specifically for French industries is a notable attempt to attract capital from beyond PNG’s traditional partners.
Strategically coupled This is strategically coupled with securing the future of the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project.
Macron’s personal undertaking to work with TotalEnergies to keep the project on schedule provides crucial stability for one of PNG’s most significant economic ventures.
For France, these arrangements secure a major energy investment for its national corporate champion and establish a stronger economic foothold in a strategically vital region between Asia and the Pacific.
In the area of security, the relationship addresses tangible needs for both nations.
PNG is faced with the immense challenge of monitoring a 2.4 million sq km Exclusive Economic Zone, making it vulnerable to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The finalisation of a Shiprider Agreement with France provides a practical force-multiplier, leveraging French naval assets to enhance PNG’s maritime surveillance capabilities. This move, along with planned defence talks on air and maritime cooperation, allows PNG to diversify its security architecture.
For France, a resident power with Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia, participating in regional security operations reinforces its role and commitment to stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Elevating diplomatic influence The partnership is also a vehicle for elevating diplomatic influence.
Port Moresby has noted the significance of engaging with a partner that holds permanent membership on the UN Security Council and seats at the G7 and G20.
This alignment provides PNG with a powerful channel to global decision-making forums. The reciprocal move to establish a PNG embassy in Paris further cements the relationship on a mature footing.
The diplomatic synergy is perhaps best illustrated by France’s full endorsement of PNG’s bid to host a future UN Ocean Conference. This support provides PNG with a major opportunity to lead on the world stage, while allowing France to demonstrate its credentials as a key partner to the Pacific Islands.
This deepening PNG-France partnership does not exist in a vacuum.
The West’s view of China’s rapid emergence as a dominant economic and military force in the region has reshaped the strategic landscape, prompting traditional powers to re-engage with renewed urgency.
increased diplomatic footprint The United States has responded by significantly increasing its diplomatic and security footprint, a move marked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Port Moresby to sign the Defence Cooperation Agreement.
Similarly, Australia, PNG’s traditional security partner, is working to reinforce its long-standing influence through initiatives like the multi-million-dollar deal to establish a PNG team in its National Rugby League (NRL), a soft-power exercise reportedly linked to security outcomes.
This competitive environment has, in turn, created greater agency for Pacific nations, allowing them to diversify their partnerships beyond old allies and providing a fertile ground for European powers like France to assert their own strategic interests.
A strong foundation for the relationship is a shared public stance on environmental stewardship. The agreement on the need for rigorous scientific studies before any deep-sea mining occurs aligns PNG’s national policy with a position of environmental caution.
This common ground extends to broader climate action, where France’s commitment to conservation in the Pacific resonates with PNG’s status as a frontline nation vulnerable to climate change.
This alignment on values provides a durable and politically important basis for cooperation, allowing both nations to jointly advocate for climate justice and ocean protection.
For the Papua New Guinea economy, this deepening partnership with France is critically important as it provides high-level stability for the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project and creates a direct pathway for new investment through a proposed SEZ for French businesses.
Vital economic resource Furthermore, by moving to finalise a Shiprider Agreement to combat illegal fishing, the government is actively protecting a vital economic resource.
For Marape’s credibility in local politics, these outcomes are tangible successes he can present to the nation as he battles a massive credibility dip in recent years.
Securing a personal undertaking from the leader of a G7 nation, gaining support for PNG to host a future UN Ocean Conference, and enhancing national security demonstrates effective leadership on the world stage.
This allows him to build a narrative of a competent statesman who, through “warm, personal relationships”, can deliver on promises of economic opportunity and national security while strengthening his political standing at home.
On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector.
From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within 24 hours. Currently there is a seven-day window.
On top of this, vapes will be banned from all early childhood services and there will be “stronger protections” around the photographing and filming of children. Services will be need to have clear policies on taking photos and videos of children, parent consent, CCTV use and using service-issued devices.
Next week, Australia’s education ministers will meet to discuss what else can be done to improve safety in childcare services. What do they need to consider?
What has happened so far?
This week’s changes stem from a 2023 review by the national early childhood quality authority, which highlighted serious concerns about childcare safety.
This found increasing reports of critical incidents in services relating to inappropriate discipline, inadequate supervision and harmful sexual behaviours.
Education Minister Jason Clare explained he set up the review, prompted by concerns for children’s safety. This included allegations of multiple cases of abuse by a former childcare worker.
But stories of mistreatment and neglect in childcare services have continued – with the ABC reporting cases of shocking abuse in some childcare centres this year.
Too many incidents
The national childcare quality authority reports there has been a slow but steady increase in the rate of confirmed breaches and reporting of serious incidents in the eight years to 2023-24.
For example, the rate of reported serious incidents in 2023-24 was 148 per 100 approved services. This is higher than the rate of 139 in 2022-23 and 124 in 2021-22.
Concerningly, current reporting levels may be an under-representation due to inadequate understanding of child safety among educators and confusion about when and how to report child safety incidents.
This mirrors Australian research, which indicates a lack of time, understanding and support are barriers for medical staff reporting child abuse.
Why is progress so slow?
There is a chance the latest announcement may inadvertently cause families concern. Parents and carers might reasonably wonder why we currently have a seven-day window to report child abuse and how vapes were ever allowed in early education services to start with.
Families may also wonder why stronger protections around filming their kids have not already been introduced – given early childhood services have been photographing children for years. The situation is further confused by the fact that some service providers may have developed and implemented their own policies.
There is a long history of slow and reactive policy making and regulation in early childhood – as noted by a review published by the Australian Council for Educational Research as far back as 2006.
The sector is also subject to complex and cumbersome structural frameworks. Services need to navigate different state and territory requirements as well as national regulations. There are also a raft of extra guidelines and codes, for example, Safe Sleep Practices by Red Nose Australia.
What is needed now?
Next week, federal and state education ministers will meet and discuss childcare safety once again. There are two important things they should keep in mind.
1. We are still missing important data.
We need a better evidence base on the exact nature and frequency of child safety incidents in childcare services. We need robust data so we can track longitudinal trends and assess the ongoing impact of new policies.
At the moment this crucial information is obscured by inconsistent data records. While this is likely due to the complex interplay of federal and state governance, this is one of many issues in the sector that has long been documented.
2. Early childhood educators are already overworked
My 2024 research with colleagues shows many early childhood educators already know what safe and quality education and care looks like. But they are frustrated their ability to spend quality time with children is hampered by administrative tasks. This frustration is a key contributor to burnout, which is already rife within the sector.
So governments should ensure important safety practices do not come with excessive, burdensome and confusing red tape.
What about families?
For families who are worried about the quality of care their children are receiving – it may help to know the vast majority of services (91%) met or exceeded the national standards as of February 2025.
If you have specific concerns you can contact the regulatory authority in your state.
Erin Harper 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 timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew 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.
Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran.Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images
Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
The Middle East is a region of intense beauty and ancient kingdoms. It has also repeatedly endured periods of geopolitical instability over many centuries.
Today, geopolitical, socio-political and religious tensions persist. The world is currently watching as longstanding regional tensions come to a head in the shocking and escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
The global airline industry takes a special interest in how such tensions play out. This airspace is a crucial corridor linking Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Middle East is now home to several of the world’s largest international airlines: Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways. These airlines’ home bases – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi, respectively – have become pivotal hubs in international aviation.
Keeping passengers safe will be all airlines’ highest priority. What could an escalating conflict mean for both the airlines and the travelling public?
Safety first
History shows that the civil airline industry and military conflict do not mix. On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes, a US navy warship, fired two surface-to-air missiles and shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an international passenger service over the Persian Gulf.
More recently, on July 17 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine as the battle between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists continued.
Understandably, global airlines are very risk-averse when it comes to military conflict. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires airlines to implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS).
One of the main concerns – known as “pillars” – of the SMS is “safety risk management”. This includes the processes to identify hazards, assess risks and implement risk mitigation strategies.
The risk-management departments of airlines transiting the Middle East region will have been working hard on these strategies.
Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization has strict requirements and protocols to keep passengers safe. meunierd/Shutterstock
Route recalculation
The most immediate and obvious evidence of such strategies being put in place are changes to aircraft routing, either by cancelling or suspending flights or making changes to the flight plans. This is to ensure aircraft avoid the airspace where military conflicts are flaring.
At the time of writing, a quick look at flight tracking website Flightradar24 shows global aircraft traffic avoiding the airspace of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. The airspace over Ukraine is also devoid of air traffic.
Rerouting, however, creates its own challenges. Condensing the path of the traffic into smaller, more congested areas can push aircraft into and over areas that are not necessarily equipped to deal with such a large increase in traffic.
Having more aircraft in a smaller amount of available safe airspace creates challenges for air traffic control services and the pilots operating the aircraft.
More time and fuel
Avoiding areas of conflict is one of the most visible forms of airline risk management. This may add time to the length of a planned flight, leading to higher fuel consumption and other logistical challenges. This will add to the airlines’ operating costs.
There will be no impact on the cost of tickets already purchased. But if the instability in the region continues, we may see airline ticket prices increase.
It is not just the avoidance of airspace in the region that could place upward pressure on the cost of flying. Airliners run on Jet-A1 fuel, produced from oil.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”, this could see the cost of oil, and in turn Jet-A1, significantly increase. Increasing fuel costs will be passed on the paying passenger. However, some experts believe such a move is unlikely.
A major hub
The major aviation hubs in the Middle East provide increased global connectivity, enabling passengers to travel seamlessly between continents.
Increased regional instability has the potential to disrupt this global connectivity. In the event of a prolonged conflict, airlines operating in and around the region may find they have increased insurance costs. Such costs would eventually find their way passed on to consumers through higher ticket prices.
Across the globe, airlines and governments are issuing travel advisories and warnings. The onus is on the travelling public to stay informed about changes to flight status, and potential delays.
Such warnings and advisories can lead to a drop in passenger confidence, which may then lead to a drop in bookings both into and onwards from the region.
Until the increase in instability in the Middle East, global airline passenger traffic numbers were larger than pre-pandemic figures. Strong growth had been predicted in the coming decades.
Anything that results in falling passenger confidence could negatively impact these figures, leading to slowed growth and affecting airline profitability.
Despite high-profile disasters, aviation remains the safest form of transport. As airlines deal with these challenges they will constantly work to keep flights safe and to win back passenger confidence in this unpredictable situation.
Natasha Heap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In an era of the atomisation of viewing practices through streaming, increasingly short, self-produced videos for TikTok and YouTube, and the reduction of all audiovisual material to “content” for various “platforms”, there is something refreshing about a bunch of strangers assembling in a dark room to collectively watch a giant screen with massive sound.
In other words, going to the movies.
And there’s no better place to see films limited in mainstream release than at film festivals. The standard of the films screening at this year’s Sydney Film Festival was exceptional, and it is difficult to select a top five out of the 40 or so I managed to see. But here goes!
Sirât
Produced by Pedro Almodovar, writer-director Oliver Laxe’s Sirât, which recently won the Jury Prize at Cannes, follows middle-aged Luis (Sergi López) as he travels with his son Esteban (Bruno Núñez Arjona) and their dog Pipa looking for his estranged daughter in the desert rave scene. They team up with a group of ravers and set off across Southern Morocco towards the next party.
Early on, there are some hints that things are awry on a broader scale – the military break up the opening doof, and we hear, at one point, World War III has broken out.
And as the film unfolds, things take a turn for the worse, with a litany of tragedies – increasingly absurd – afflicting the members of the group. The vaguely futuristic world of the opening crystallises into something much more terrifying than the kind of shrill cinematic post-apocalypticism we’ve become used to through films like Fury Road.
What begins as a kind of paean to raving – replete with bass-thumping speakers (cranked in theatres to eardrum pounding loudness), a “cool” crew of trippers, and an emphasis on the free lives of the ravers (played by real-life party-goers) – rapidly descends into a wild existential nightmare. And the idea that life is a kind of free consumerist party for westerners is viciously dismembered in the second half: we are all refugees in this era.
Sirât is a masterpiece. Its stunning 16mm film images (courtesy of cinematographer Mauro Herve) are complemented by exceptional sound design by Laia Casanova, a majesty of image and sound demanding to be experienced in a cinema.
Somebody
Written and directed by Lee Jung-chan and Kim Yeo-jung, the South Korean film Somebody is a puzzling, intense psycho drama about precociously evil child So-hyun (Gi So-yoo) and the pressures this places on her single mother Yeong-eun (Kwak Sun-young).
An unsettling horror thriller, the film also plays like a study of the evil child archetype. It works through the genre’s cliches, unpicking them while eschewing the usual evil-kid scares in favour of looking at the complex interplay between and ambiguity around the image of child as brat/evil and mother as caring/enabler.
In the first half, the point of view oscillates between an image of the child as evil and the child as scared. In the second half, the evil child has grown up, and we follow her towards the film’s brutal (and unexpected) ending.
And this is where Somebody excels. It taps into the fear of parents that their children are alien parasites – who is this stranger now living off me? – but also the difficulties for children in feeling isolated and scared.
Somebody is a deeply sad and troubling film, buoyed by excellent performances from adults and children alike. In real life, the idea that a kid would be born evil is preposterous, but it’s a movieland cliché that works. Somebody addresses this idea with a genuinely impressive vision.
Harvest
Athina Rachel Tsangari’s Harvest is a melancholic, elegiac film set in a rural community in Scotland in the Middle Ages. When the economic harmony of the village is disrupted by the advent of a new noble, three wandering strangers are mercilessly scapegoated, despite the efforts of villager Walter Thirsk (Caleb Landry Jones, in a beautifully understated performance) to protect them.
Despite the turmoil it depicts, the film unfolds as gently as the familiar rhythms of the seasons.
Cinematographer Sean Price Williams’ 16mm images are uncannily beautiful, supported by an astonishing score and sound design from Nicolas Becker.
This fable about the ravages of modernity (recalling Vincent Ward’s The Navigator) – of the violence of calendar time as it overcomes the time of the harvest – is exceptional in every respect.
Not much happens. It’s a slow-moving, brooding film, and it would not be nearly as compelling seen on a small screen. But for those of us willing to make a trip to the movies, Harvest is immensely satisfying.
Redux Redux
Part of the eternally rousing Freak Me Out strand of the program from film critic Richard Kuipers, Kevin and Matthew McManus’ Redux Redux is the kind of high concept film that could easily depend too much on its ingenious conceit (a woman travels throughout the multiverse repeatedly avenging the murder of her daughter) and forget about the stuff that actually makes films work (coherent, striking visual design, immersive sound and compelling performances).
But Redux Redux gets everything right, maintaining its iron grip on the viewer from the opening title card to the closing credits. Michaela McManus – sister of the writer-directors – is brilliant as the grieving, vengeful mother, playing the part with a staid intensity that never tips into hysteria or melodrama.
There are some funny moments – the amusingly lowbrow design of the multiverse machine, for example. But the film never feels like it plays too hard for laughs. Paul Koch’s synth music and sound design are richly atmospheric without coming off as trite, and perfectly support the crisp, economical cinematography of Alan Gwizdowski.
The most impressive thing about the film is the effortlessness with which the story feels like it develops throughout – even though the plot, on the surface, involves the same thing being repeated ad nauseam.
Unlike, for example, in the case of the multiverse-themed Everything Everywhere All at Once, Redux Redux never comes across as self-indulgent, clever for its own sake. It never feels like anything other than a compulsively watchable – and immensely pleasurable – revenge thriller.
Alpha
Writer-director Jan-Willem van Ewijk’s Alpha begins as a lightly comedic intergenerational social satire.
Thirty-something Rein (Reinout Scholten van Aschat), a Dutch snowboarder in the Swiss alps, clashes with his movie-star father, Gijs (Gijs Scholten van Aschar), when Gijs visits him. Gijs flirts with Rein’s girlfriend, asks inappropriate questions about race, and parties with his son’s friends, all the time escalating the stakes, becoming increasingly overbearing and competitive.
It’s funny and familiar fare, treading similar terrain to a Ruben Östland film, and it’s well-done. Pairing a real life father and son is a casting act of genius, adding both pathos and authenticity to their competition.
Similar to Sirât, Alpha takes a sudden turn at the mid-way point. Father and son are trapped in an avalanche. It becomes a race against time as son tries to rescue father in a gruelling battle for survival.
Its brutal second half completely detonates the entire scaffold of our pleasure from the first half. Testament to the craft of van Ewijk (and the talent of the stars), this radical change in tone never feels incoherent or contrived.
By the end of Alpha, the petty dick-swinging of father and son from the first half – and the energetic (and well-shot) skiing footage – becomes nothing before the austere, cold majesty of the mountains looming over and entrapping them.
Alpha is a masterclass in audience manipulation. A truly devastating experience for the viewer.
Other notable films – and one dud!
There were too many excellent films to note them all. Some include master auteur Christian Petzold’s Mirrors No. 3, a film – typical of Petzold – of people haunted by ghosts of lives lost and faded desires, an understated film which – again, customary for Petzold’s work – has an enigmatic air one can’t quite put one’s finger on.
Kleber Mendonça Filho’s The Secret Agent was another standout: a fun, rollicking romp for cinephiles about political machinations in Brazil in the 1970s.
Richard Linklater’s Blue Moon, a biopic of American songwriter Lorenz Hart, had a charmingly goofy affect, as did Vie Privée, a breezy French thriller starring Jodie Foster as a psychoanalyst caught up in a mystery.
Olmo, which could easily have made the top five, is a charming coming of age odyssey about a Mexican-American 14-year-old going to a party with his crush. The Love That Remains is a stunningly shot, surreal comedy about the trials and tribulations of an Icelandic family.
As per usual, some exceptional documentaries screened. Joh: The Last King of Queensland made by Kriv Stenders (better known for narrative works like Red Dog), is a formally compelling study of the reign of Australia’s longest serving premier.
The Raftsmen is an uplifting crowd-pleaser about the expedition from Ecuador to Australia that captivated the public’s attention in 1973. The film is built around an exceptional archive of contemporaneous 16mm footage shot by the rafters.
Lowland Kids, produced by Darren Aronofsky, is a carefully observed documentary about a community in Louisiana forced to relocate because of climate change. This tender film counterpoints the grim reality of global warming with the individual disappointments of the characters’ personal lives.
The only truly execrable film I saw was Michel Franco’s Dreams, a hokey, profoundly dumb film masquerading as something cutting edge (wow – there’s sex, and the camera doesn’t move much), cashing in on topical problems in the United States. Worst of all – and despite ballet sequences, which are always good to watch – it’s a very ugly film.
Given the mediocre quality of much contemporary Hollywood cinema, one dud out of 40 isn’t too bad!
Ari Mattes 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.
Ever find yourself unable to stop scrolling through your phone, chasing that next funny video or interesting post?
Or maybe you’ve felt a rush of excitement when you achieve a goal, eat a delicious meal, or fill your online shopping cart.
Why do some experiences feel so rewarding, while others leave us feeling flat? Well, dopamine might be responsible for that. Here’s what it does in our brains and bodies.
It’s a chemical messenger
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter – a chemical messenger that facilitates communication between the brain and the central nervous system. It sends messages between different parts of your nervous system, helping your body and brain coordinate everything from your movement to your mood.
Dopamine is most known for its role in short-term pleasure, and the boost we get from things such as eating tasty foods, drinking alcohol, scrolling social media or falling in love.
It even plays a role in kidney function by regulating the levels of salt and water we excrete.
Conversely, low levels of dopamine have been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.
How dopamine motivates us to pursue pleasure
Dopamine is not just active when we do pleasurable things. It’s active beforehand and it drives us to pursue pleasure.
Say I go to a cafe and decide to buy a doughnut. When I bite into the doughnut, it tastes fantastic. Dopamine surges and I experience pleasure.
The next time I walk past the cafe, dopamine is already active. It remembers the doughnut I had last time and how delicious it was. Dopamine drives me to walk back into the cafe, purchase another doughnut and eat it.
From an evolutionary perspective, dopamine was incredibly important and it ensured survival of the species. It motivated behaviours such as hunting and foraging for food. It reinforced the pursuit of finding shelter and safety and keeping away from predators. And it motivated people to seek out mates and to reproduce.
However, modern technology has amplified the effects of dopamine, leading to negative consequences. Activities such as excessive social media use, gambling, consuming alcohol, drug use, sex, pornography and gaming can stimulate dopamine release, creating cycles of addiction and compulsive behaviours.
Our dopamine levels can vary
Our brain is constantly releasing small amounts of dopamine at a “baseline” rate. This is because dopamine is crucial to the functioning of our brain and body, irrespective of pleasure.
Everyone has a different baseline, influenced by genetic factors such as our DRD2 dopamine receptor genes. Some people produce and metabolise dopamine faster than other people. Our baseline levels can also be influenced by sleep, nutrition and stress in our lives.
If I play games on my phone all morning and get a dopamine release from that, then I eat something tasty for morning tea, I may not experience the same level of fulfilment or enjoyment that I would have had I not played those games.
The brain works hard to regulate itself and it won’t allow us to be in a constant state of dopamine “highs”. This means we can build a tolerance to certain exciting activities if we seek them out too much, as the brain wants to avoid being in a state of constant dopamine “highs”.
Healthy ways to get a dopamine boost
Thankfully, there are healthy, non-addictive ways to boost your dopamine levels.
Exercise is one of the most effective methods for boosting dopamine naturally. Physical activities such as walking, running, cycling, or even dancing can trigger the release of dopamine, leading to improved mood and greater motivation.
Research has shown listening to music you enjoy makes your brain release more dopamine, giving you a pleasurable experience.
And of course, spending time with people whose company we enjoy is another great way to activate dopamine.
Incorporating these habits into daily life can support your brain’s natural dopamine production and help you enjoy lasting improvements in motivation, mood and overall health.
Anastasia Hronis is the author of The Dopamine Brain: Your Science-Backed Guide to Balancing Pleasure and Purpose, published by Penguin Books Aus & NZ.
For millennia, First Nations people have shaped Australian ecosystems through the purposeful and skilful use of fire. This cultural burning is an important way for Aboriginal people to connect to and care for Country.
Under climate change, Earth is experiencing more frequent and severe bushfires. This has prompted a rethink of Western approaches to fire management, and triggered the development of cultural burning programs supported by government agencies.
At the same time, First Nations people have been calling to revitalise cultural burning as part of a generations-long pursuit of self-determination.
Our new research details the results of a Indigenous-led cultural burning program in critically endangered woodlands in New South Wales. It shows how Western science can support cultural burning to deliver benefits across cultures – as well as for nature.
What we did
Box-gum grassy woodland has been extensively cleared for agriculture, and only about 5% of its original extent remains. The woodlands are endangered in NSW and critically endangered across eastern Australia.
They feature diverse eucalypt trees, sparse shrubs and native tussock grasses, and support native fauna including the critically endangered regent honeyeater and swift parrot.
Our project brought together First Nations communities, ecologists from the Australian National University and officers from Local Land Services. It also involved the Rural Fire Service.
Cultural burns are relatively cool, slow fires. They trickle through the landscape, enabling animals to escape the flames. They promote the germination of plants, including culturally important food and medicine plants, among other benefits.
Cultural burns are important to First Nations people for a variety of cultural and social reasons. The practice is part of a broader suite of inherited cultural responsibilities shared through generations.
Our project involved cultural burns in the winter and spring of 2023. Wiradjuri people burned their Country around Young and Wagga Wagga, and Ngunnawal people burned their Country near Yass.
The burns took place on travelling stock reserves – remnant patches of vegetation historically used to move cattle from paddock to market. These reserves are very important for Aboriginal people because they often trace Songlines and Dreaming tracks. They are also important for farmers as places to graze cattle during drought.
Alongside the cultural burning program, ANU research ecologists monitored how the woodlands responded to the burns. They did this by surveying plants, soils and biomass before and about eight months after the burns, as well as in unburnt areas.
What we found
We measured plant responses by counting the number of plant individuals and recording germination.
Many native plant species germinated after the burn. They included native peas – one an endangered species, the small scurf pea, which germinated exclusively after the burns.
Germination was greater in burned than unburned sites, including for sensitive species that commonly respond well to fire such as native glycine (a herb) and lomandra grasses.
Importantly, the condition of a site before the burn affected how well plants responded. Condition refers to factors such as the diversity of native plants (including sensitive species) and the presence of weeds.
After the burn, native plants were more abundant on sites with a better starting condition, than on those in poor condition. This highlights the importance of improving the health of poor-condition areas after burns.
The type of appropriate management will depend on the site, but may include weed control and planting or seeding native species. More monitoring will also help quantify longer term responses after burning.
Investing in community and nature
Indigenous community members led the burns on their Country and were represented by women and men of multiple generations. They were paid for their work and offered fire-safety training and personal protective equipment.
The burns were often community events – days of connection and sharing knowledge within communities, and between cultures. This fostered opportunities for “two-way learning” and “two-eyed seeing” – ways of respectfully bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge.
Our project shows how cross-cultural partnerships can be central to conserving and restoring Australia’s unique and highly diverse ecosystems, during a period of environmental change. But for this to happen, cultural burning must be better integrated into mainstream land management.
This is especially needed in some parts of southern Australia, where government-funded programs have been less resourced than in parts of northern and Central Australia.
Government agencies and institutions can support Indigenous land stewardship in various ways.
These include:
designing projects with Indigenous people from the outset, and being directed by community aspirations which supports self-determination
forming meaningful cross-cultural partnerships across agencies to navigate complex bureaucratic processes
providing Indigenous people with resources and land access to manage Country, including funding for labour, training and equipment. Provisions for sufficient resources must be made from the beginning, in grant applications
protecting and acknowledging the rights of Indigenous people to their cultural heritage, such as traditional knowledge, through formal protection agreements.
Elle Bowd receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the ACT government, the Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council.
David Lindenmayer receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the 4AM Foundation, NSW Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birds Australia.
Geoff Cary receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Bushfire Research Centre of Excellence funded by ANU and Optus, and previously received funding from Future Ready Regions EDIS Development, Australian Research Council, ACT Government, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Greenhouse Office/Department of Climate Change Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia funding schemes, Desert Knowledge CRC, NSW Department of Environment & Conservation, Tasmanian Government and US National Science Foundation.
Braithan Bell-Garner and Dean Freeman do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland
Last week, the Queensland government launched the ambitious Destination 2045 tourism plan, which aims to make the state a global leader in tourism. The plan highlights that one in six jobs in tropical north Queensland are supported by tourism.
However, earlier this year the same government tentatively withdrew support from a campaign to add Cape York to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
If the goal is to position Queensland as a leader in tourism, then linking Cape York’s landscapes to the World Heritage brand would certainly help achieve that.
Consultation is key
In June 2024, Steven Miles, Labor’s then-premier in Queensland, and Tanya Plibersek, the federal environment minister, announced they had placed seven of the cape’s national parks on Australia’s tentative World Heritage list.
In January, however, the newly elected Liberal-National government, under Premier David Crisafulli, ordered a review of the decision. The government cited concerns over a lack of sufficient consultation around the nomination.
If a lack of consultation is the main issue, there is an opportunity for the Crissafulli government to thoughtfully reopen negotiations.
Getting this step right could help conserve and encourage tourism to one of Australia’s most diverse landscapes – in line with the Destination 2045 plan.
How to get onto (and kicked off) UNESCO’s list
Cape York covers some 137,000 square kilometres. According to the 2021 census, it has a population of less than 8,000 people, including 3,678 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Fruit Bat Falls is a waterfall located in the Apudthama National Park (Jardine River National Park) in Cape York. Jason Clark/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Inscription to the World Heritage list doesn’t mean the entire cape would be listed – just specific sites and landscapes within it.
It’s usually the responsibility of a country’s various governments to convince UNESCO, in a nomination bid, a certain place has the necessary “outstanding universal value” and meets at least one of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria.
Sites that are physically altered or damaged after receiving World Heritage status can be de-listed, either by a state party or by UNESCO. This has happened in Oman, Germany, the United Kingdom and Georgia.
We also recently saw the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, with its extraordinary record of rock engravings (petroglyphs), denied World Heritage inscription. This was mainly due to the threat of ongoing damage from industrial emissions from Woodside Energy’s nearby Karratha gas plant.
World Heritage status: a risk or benefit?
A carefully considered World Heritage inscription doesn’t necessarily block industries and tourism from the listed area.
Many of the archaeological sites of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area in New South Wales are located on sheep stations. These stations, established in the late 19th century, have individual property plans that ensure the sites are conserved while remaining viable for agricultural activity.
Another example is the tourism seen at the extraordinary eel trap system of Budj Bim in southwest Victoria. Budj Bim is one of Australia’s most recent additions to the World Heritage list. It is also the first site to be inscribed solely for its cultural value.
The Budj Bim eel traps were engineered some 6,600 years ago, and represent one of the world’s oldest aquaculture systems.
This cultural landscape is now home to a thriving tourism program that attracts thousands of visitors each year. The World Heritage listing ensures there are enough resources for the Gunditjmara Traditional Owners running the site to improve the health of Country through cultural and environmental management.
While Queensland’s current government has cited concerns over planning restrictions, these types of concerns are typically based on perception rather than proven harm. In Queensland, they were also clearly addressed in government memos and communications.
Tasmania’s forestry sector resisted World Heritage expansion (there were four expansions between 1989–2013), yet tourism in the region remains economically valuable.
It’s unlikely the Cape York nominations would threaten the pastoral or mining industries, since most of the nominated sites are already protected as national parks.
What makes a World Heritage site?
The list of Cape York sites submitted for World Heritage consideration has some strong contenders. Quinkan Country is undoubtedly the most significant site on the list, distinguished by its diversity and richness of Aboriginal paintings and engravings.
But the list isn’t exhaustive. There are several other Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Cape York that also deserve to be considered by UNESCO. These include the giant shell mounds around Weipa, Jiigurru (Lizard Island), and the Flinders Island Group with its extraordinary rock art galleries.
Moving forward
World heritage listings in Cape York have great potential to allow Aboriginal people to care for the landscapes and create tourism infrastructure that centres Aboriginal perspectives.
Appointing Aboriginal rangers in the Flinders Island Group could help deliver a unique and sustainable cultural tourism experience, similar to that provided at the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Destination 2045 highlights the importance of developing Aboriginal ranger programs in such landscapes to boost cultural tourism and economic growth.
Inggal Odul (Denham Island part of Flinders Island Group). Source: Olivia Arnold (2023).
The Crisafulli government now has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the Traditional Custodians of the Cape York landscapes that have been put forth. We argue that the World Heritage listing outcome could help the cape’s economic development and support its communities.
Michael Westaway receives funding from then Australian Research Council and has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Kaurarag Archipelago, around Mapoon and Weipa including on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay.
Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Ania previously sat on the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nomination Bids review panel. Ania undertakes research with Aboriginal communities including within the Kaurareg Archipelago.
Denis Rose is on the board of the not-for-profit Country Needs People, which advocates for Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous Rangers Program.
Olivia Arnold has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay, Kaurarag Archipelago and Jiigurru (Lizard Island group).
Rylee Smith 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.
