Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abby Mellick Lopes, Professor, Social Design, Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney

Many of our homes and workplaces were built for a milder climate that no longer exists. As Australia braces for more days above 40ºC and hot nights, many homes – especially older or poorly insulated ones – become unsafe as heat overwhelms the body’s natural cooling systems.

Wealthier households may be able to retrofit homes to stay cool using passive thermal techniques or air-conditioning more freely, but rising energy costs make this difficult for many people. Extreme heat hits everyone, but the burden falls most heavily on those with the least resources.

As bushfires become more frequent and fire season extends over longer, hotter summers, bushfire smoke adds another layer of risk. Houses relying on natural ventilation draw unsafe air inside, while poorly constructed homes allow smoke to leak indoors. In both cases, people are left without safe shelter – a basic human right

It would take decades to upgrade every home in Australia to protect against heat and smoke, particularly given the return on investment from housing is prioritised in a capitalist system over housing’s social role.

This means many people will increasingly need climate shelters – cool, safe public places such as libraries and communities centres where people can escape heat and smoke.

What is a climate shelter?

Also known as a climate refuge, clean air shelter, heat haven and resilience hub, a climate shelter is a public place providing temporary protection during extreme weather. Typically, these are existing facilities like community centres, libraries or even schools. When needed, they provide free access to air-conditioning, drinking water, power, Wi-Fi and other amenities.

The concept is gaining traction globally. In 2019, Barcelona – a city that has experienced record-breaking temperatures in recent years – established the Climate Shelters Network of shaded outdoor areas and indoor cooled spaces. The city aims for all residents to be within a five-minute walk of a shelter by 2030.

In China, underground air-raid shelters from the second world war have been repurposed as cooling centres. In Chongqing, many now operate as an “underground city” of cooler social spaces for activities such as eating the city’s famous hot-pot.

In the United States, climate disasters have long been linked to the design and management of cities. In Chicago, for example, heat deaths have resulted from power grid failure, prompting the establishment of “climate resilience hubs” to ensure communities have access to power with solar and battery storage.

What happens in Australia?

Necessity has forced Australia to become better at establishing emergency centres such as bushfire bunkers and temporary evacuation centres stocked with slabs of bottled water and rows of camp beds. But more preparation is needed for heat and smoke events that don’t meet the threshold for disasters.

People often turn to shopping centres, cinemas, fast-food restaurants (particularly those with indoor play spaces), or social clubs to escape the heat. But these commercial spaces prioritise consumption, not public health. In the ACT, allowing clubs to function as heat and smoke refuges has generated community concern about the harm from gambling.

In response, non-commercial refuges are stepping up. Libraries, community centres, and even places of worship have served as climate shelters in recent summers.

The Blacktown City Cool Centres program kicks into action when the temperature reaches 36ºC, alerting registered residents with a text message. The City of Melbourne offers a similar Community Cool Places program. In Eurobodalla, on the NSW south coast, seven volunteer-run Heat Havens opened in January this year, retrofitted with solar and backup generators. This keeps them operational during bushfires, a recent experience for residents.

Climate haven challenges

Climate shelters are still a new idea, with many programs in an early or pilot phase. This offers us opportunities to learn and improve. Common challenges include low awareness among vulnerable groups and concerns about their accessibility.

Climate shelters are needed most in low-income urban areas where there are typically fewer trees and therefore shade, which makes even a five-minute walk on an extremely hot and smoky day a challenge. Safe journeys also require accessible public transport.

Accessibility extends beyond physical distance. It must also consider the intersecting issues of social and cultural safety and comfort. This includes the needs of people with medical conditions, mobility issues or disabilities and their carers, those who require private space for religious observance, and people who cannot leave pets behind.

Crucially, the activities available at the centres – especially during long stays – will strongly influence whether people are willing to leave home and use them.

Operational challenges, such as opening hours and appropriate staffing to support people who may be unwell or in distress, all require thought.

In many cases, protection from bushfire smoke potentially requires building improvements and retrofits such as air locks, reliable backup power and high-quality air filtration. More research is needed to develop guidelines and evaluate the effectiveness of these climate shelters.

Read more: Keeping the city cool isn’t just about tree cover – it calls for a commons-based climate response

Creating climate-ready cities

Our research into Community Resilience Centres will identify best practice in establishing climate shelters to protect vulnerable people from heat and smoke. We will monitor air and temperature and ask communities to help us design guidelines and resources to address accessibility concerns.

Climate shelters will be increasingly crucial in cities which are far from “climate-ready”. But thinking of them as an option of last resort reduces the likelihood they will be used. We need to find ways to create shelters that offer welcoming cool havens that care for all residents.

– ref. In a heatwave, a cool library or shopping centre is a lifeline. Do we need more climate shelters? – https://theconversation.com/in-a-heatwave-a-cool-library-or-shopping-centre-is-a-lifeline-do-we-need-more-climate-shelters-275661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

Australia’s economy grew at its fastest annual rate in almost three years in the December quarter, rising 2.6%, although this is still modest growth by historical standards.

Gross domestic product (GDP) for the quarter rose 0.8%, picking up from 0.5% in the September quarter, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Both private-sector and government spending contributed to growth.

But the report predates the latest conflict in the Middle East. The economy now faces the challenge of higher petrol prices and geopolitical uncertainty, which could slow future growth.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the numbers were encouraging at a time of “intense global economic volatility”.

The combination of a possible slowing in economic growth and inflation above the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target band makes its next move on interest rates especially tricky.

What areas of the economy are growing most?

Household spending grew by 0.3% in the quarter, and by 2.4% through the year. At the same time, people were saving more of their income. The household saving ratio increased to 6.9%, up from 6.1% in the September quarter. It is now at its highest level since the September quarter 2022.

Government spending grew by 0.9%; 1.0% by state and local governments, 0.8% by the Commonwealth. State spending was the main driver, reflecting electricity rebates, health, education and police.

Claims that inflation is mostly being pushed up by rampant government spending are exaggerated. While it makes a contribution, it is only one of many factors. The private and public sectors each contributed 0.3 percentage points to growth in the latest quarter.

Read more: Is federal government spending really to blame for higher inflation? It’s not clear cut

GDP per person grew by 0.9% over the course of 2025. This represents a modest improvement in material living standards (one but not the only component of quality of life). It is better than declines in real GDP per person in some recent periods.

Short-term pressures

The Middle East war has led to higher oil prices. This adds to Australia’s inflation; however, we have no way to tell whether this is a short- or long-term effect. The war could be over next week, or last for months.

Moreover, raising interest rates in Australia would not target the underlying cause of the shock. Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock is right to be cautious about predicting the war’s economic impact.

A rule of thumb is that every US$1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates into 1 cent a litre at the bowser for Australians. If the oil price stays around $20 a barrel higher than before the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, petrol prices here would rise 20c per litre, or about 10%.

As petrol has a weight of around 3% in the consumer price index, this would add 0.3% to inflation.

Read more: Why surging oil prices are a shock for the global economy – but not yet a crisis

The other short-term influence on economic conditions will be the federal budget in May. If it helps improve productivity over time, that will ease capacity constraints and allow higher growth without added inflation.

An important step would be to encourage more competition in sectors dominated by a few large firms, such as supermarkets and banking. That would make them likely to invest in better machinery or processes, and use labour more efficiently.

The longer-term view

The 2.6% growth rate in 2025 is above the Reserve Bank’s estimate of the long-term potential growth rate of 2%.

But is 2% really the best we can sustain? Should 2% be the “speed limit” for our economy?

“Speed limit” is merely a metaphor for capacity constraints. If the economy grows faster than available resources such as labour and capital, and improvements in efficiency, can keep up, then firms will compete for resources and drive up prices.

There are differing views on whether this would happen at 2% growth. Treasury thinks the sustainable growth limit is a bit higher, at 2.2%. Former Reserve Bank assistant governor Luci Ellis also thinks 2% is too pessimistic.

Economic growth used to be much higher. Fifteen years ago, former RBA governor Glenn Stevens speculated the “speed limit” was 3% (a pessimistic view then).

The average growth rate of 2.2% in the past decade is well below the average annual growth rate of 3.5% Australia managed in the 1990s and 3% in the 2000s. It compares even less favourably with the growth rate of more than 5% in the 1960s.

There is a risk of 2% growth becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if the Reserve Bank raises interest rates any time the economy grows significantly faster. The evidence that the economy is currently overheating is limited. Wage growth, for example, has been under 3.5% since late 2024.

What does it mean for interest rates?

The Reserve Bank had forecast real GDP growth of 2.3% in 2025, so today’s number is unlikely to lead to a significant policy revision.

The RBA’s latest forecast is based on the assumption that its key interest rate, the cash rate, would increase further this year. Another interest rate rise is likely.

While Bullock regards the March meeting, and indeed “every meeting”, as “live” – meaning rate changes may be on the table – she also recently referred to a need to be “patient”.

So the Reserve Bank may not move at its next meeting on March 17. Waiting until the May meeting would allow it to see whether inflation in the March quarter remained elevated.

– ref. Australian economy picks up speed, but managing inflation and rates is getting harder – https://theconversation.com/australian-economy-picks-up-speed-but-managing-inflation-and-rates-is-getting-harder-277236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

The Israeli Operation Roaring Lion and the American Operation Epic Fury started early on Feb. 28 when both countries began attacking Iran. Their airstrikes killed Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while striking military targets and cities across the country. More than 700 people have reportedly been killed in the attacks so far, including children at a girls’ school.

Iran responded with its own Operation True Promise 4 missile and drone strikes against Israeli and American targets. But it also started bombarding nine other Middle East countries. Iran’s attacks to date have killed six U.S. soldiers, 10 civilians in Israel and about 10 more in Arab countries.

Iran’s allies have joined the fighting. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Iranian-backed militants in Iraq have launched their own rockets, while Houthi militants in Yemen have threated to enter the fray too.

Iran’s counterattacks might appear strategically reckless. But they’re sowing chaos across the region and revealing the limits of their neighbour’s defences.

Israel’s defences under strain

Israel has sophisticated missile defences and ample operational experience. Its Iron Dome short-range rocket interceptors entered service in 2011. The medium-range David’s Sling and long-range Arrow interceptors followed.

Its newest weapon is a laser system. Iron Beam saw its first combat use last year against drones and small rockets.

But interceptors aren’t foolproof, and they sometimes fail.

Iran’s newest weapons aggravate this problem. Some missiles reportedly carry dozens of small explosives instead of one big one. These little bomblets disperse while falling from the sky to complicate interception.

Israel has warning systems and bomb shelters to protect civilians from nearby explosions, but some residents lack immediate access to shelters. One woman died on Feb. 28 when a missile landed near her building before she could take cover.

Additionally, some older shelters were designed only to withstand smaller rockets. On March 1, a ballistic missile with a 500-kilogram warhead directly hit a shelter, killing nine people inside.

Spillover into Arab states

Iran’s Arab neighbours are accustomed to being bystanders during Israel-Iran conflicts. This time, however, Iran is attacking them too.

Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman have all been assaulted by Iranian weapons. Some 282 missiles and 833 drones attacked those countries over the weekend, and the barrage remains ongoing.

Even a British airbase in Cyprus, far away in the Mediterranean, has been struck.

Iran claims it’s only targeting U.S. forces stationed in those countries. However, airports, hotels, apartment buildings and oil tankers have also been hit. Oman had recently hosted U.S.-Iran peace talks, and last week announced that peace was “within reach.”

Most of the countries have U.S.-made Patriot interceptor systems to defend against such attacks, but they lack Israel’s operational experience. The U.S. also has Patriot and THAAD interceptors in the region.

In one case, three U.S. Patriot air defence missiles failed to intercept an incoming Iranian ballistic missile warhead, which reportedly struck Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And Kuwaiti air defences accidentally shot down three U.S. fighter jets.

Costly choices

Economic costs are growing too. With oil and gas refineries closing, and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz halted, global oil prices have jumped.

Read more: What is the Strait of Hormuz, and why does its closure matter so much to the global economy?

Iran’s attacks beyond Israel have also prompted more countries to oppose it. Qatar shot down two Iranian fighter jets on March 2 and Britain has begun allowing U.S. airstrikes from British airbases. France is sending air defences to Cyprus and Ukraine is sending drone experts to Arab countries.

An uncertain future

It’s difficult to predict how long the attacks will continue. Iran is believed to have around 2,500 ballistic missiles stockpiled, including 1,000 that could strike Israel or perhaps Europe. Its drone supply is likely larger, meaning launches could continue for months.

U.S. and Israeli warplanes are actively hunting Iranian missile launchers, but past conflicts show airstrikes alone have little impact on launch rates. Those drop only if ground invasions occur.

It’s likewise unclear how long the American-Israeli bombing campaign will last. U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested four to five weeks, maybe longer.

However, the U.S. military will likely start running out of interceptor missiles in four weeks. Qatar reportedly has only enough for four days.

Trump’s warplanes will probably run out of high-priority targets even sooner.

Trump’s political end game

The greatest uncertainty right now concerns Trump and his motives, as his war goals appear to keep shifting.

He has called for the Iranian people to “seize control” of their “destiny.” But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said the operation is not intended to cause regime change.

Such a regime change is unlikely. Trump’s January attack on Venezuela merely captured the country’s president and left the rest of the regime in place. He showed more interest in Venezuela’s oil than its governance.

America’s previous regime change in Iran also didn’t end well. In 1953, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency incited a coup that removed Iran’s elected government and replaced it with a military regime that was friendly to U.S. but unpopular in Iran. In 1979, a revolt ended the dictatorship and installed the current Islamic Republic.

Trump has often favoured transactional diplomatic deals in the past. Whether this conflict moves toward escalation or negotiation remains unclear, but it’s likely he’ll seek do something similar here.

What is clear is that the longer the conflict continues, the greater the human and economic costs are likely to be.

– ref. Iran’s missile mayhem show the limits of Middle East defences – https://theconversation.com/irans-missile-mayhem-show-the-limits-of-middle-east-defences-277211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei triggered immediate and sharply polarised reactions, in Iran and around the world.

In some circles, it was openly celebrated as the end of an era associated with repression, theocracy and regional confrontation. In others, it was met with deep grief, prayers and public mourning.

The division was visible far beyond Iran’s borders. In Sydney, Melbourne and New Zealand cities, some diaspora Iranians were celebrating in the streets. But several Shiite mosques and Islamic institutions organised public memorials and prayer sessions to mark his death.

The response quickly became political. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns condemned what he described as the “lionising of this tyrant,” stating:

I think we can call the mourning of this tyrant atrocious […] By any objective measure the ayatollah was evil.

Others, including media commentators such as Amanda Rose, argued that holding a funeral or prayer gathering falls within the bounds of religious freedom, regardless of political disagreement with the figure being mourned.

Inside Iran, the picture was similarly complex. Some citizens expressed relief or celebrated, particularly those who had experienced repression or economic hardship. Many others publicly mourned Khamenei, attending ceremonies or sharing messages of grief.

This raises a deeper question: why does one political and religious figure provoke such radically different emotional responses, not only across societies, but within the same communities?

The legacy of resilience

Khamenei’s legacy cannot be understood through a single lens. For some, he embodied political resistance and religious values. For others, he symbolised authoritarian rule, curtailed freedoms and missed democratic opportunities.

Any serious assessment must begin by recognising that both readings coexist – and that his impact on the Muslim world and the Middle East will remain deeply contested.

For his supporters, Khamenei was not merely an Iranian leader. He was a pillar of regional resistance politics and a religious authority. He transformed political Islam into a force capable of confronting what he framed as global hegemony and modern forms of colonial domination.

Through the formation of the so-called “axis of resistance” and his consistent call for Islamic opposition to the United States and Israel, he became a leading figure for Shiite movements and segments of Sunni political Islam.

Sunni groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood were not created by Iran. Yet they voluntarily aligned themselves with Tehran’s resistance framework, forming close strategic ties.

Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 as a result of Iranian-backed resistance, significantly elevated Khamenei’s standing among many Muslims. This reinforced the perception that resistance could produce tangible results.

Read more: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s killing plays into Shiite Islam’s reverence for martyrs, but not for all Iranians

For Shiites, his legacy carries additional weight. His support for Shiite communities living in Sunni-ruled states – many of whom had experienced long periods of marginalisation – was seen as a historic political shift.

For many Shiite communities in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and beyond, Khameinei’s leadership symbolised political empowerment, the building of political and military institutions, and the creation of a new balance of power.

As guardian of the Islamic Republic, his ability to steer the regime through sanctions, protests, war and internal crises – while expanding Iran’s regional influence – also earned him domestic support.

Some Iranians viewed him as a stabilising, patriotic figure. After eight years of war with Iraq shattered the country, he rebuilt the political, economic and military systems. He also shaped Iran’s doctrine of defiance against pressure from Israel and the West.

As a result, his death viewed by supporters as martyrdom may inspire them for long.

The legacy of authoritarianism

On the other hand, Khamenei’s rule was marked by severe restrictions on political freedoms inside Iran and support for dictators such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. This cost him popularity among other Sunni Muslims in the Arab world.

His regime forcefully suppressed reformist movements and successive waves of protest – including the most recent nationwide demonstrations. Journalists, civil society activists and opposition figures faced arrests, bans and systematic pressure.

The central tension of his legacy remains clear: the same system that empowered certain communities beyond Iran’s borders simultaneously constrained political freedoms at home.

Khamenei will remain one of the most consequential Middle Eastern figures of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. His death does not end the debate over political Islam, state sovereignty or resistance politics. If anything, it intensifies it.

Reactions to his death mirror the deeper fault lines within the Muslim world between secularism and religiosity, sovereignty and global integration, resistance and reform.

History will remember him as a defining figure whose impact reshaped the region – for better or worse.

– ref. Mourning, celebration and a divided legacy: why the death of Ali Khamenei reverberates far beyond Iran – https://theconversation.com/mourning-celebration-and-a-divided-legacy-why-the-death-of-ali-khamenei-reverberates-far-beyond-iran-277378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean Spinks, Associate Professor, Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland

Aunty Mary stands reluctantly back from the busy counter at her local community pharmacy, not quite sure how to get some help.

She notices a colourful poster on the wall that shows all the language and cultural groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and relaxes a little.

Then the pharmacist in the dispensary catches her eye and smiles. The pharmacist had recently met Aunty Mary at the local Aboriginal Health Service, introduced by an Aboriginal Health Worker who knew she had some worries about her medicines.

The pharmacist comes out of the dispensary and finds a quiet place to chat with Aunty Mary. Together they work through her questions about how to take her new medicine and whether it may be making her feel unwell.

Ideally, culturally appropriate and accessible medicines advice, like in this fictional example, should be easy to access.

Unfortunately, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face barriers to accessing medicines advice, and this can make them more vulnerable to health issues from using medicines.

But our new research, published today, shows the solution is simple.

Health problems related to medicines

Medicines are the main treatment for many conditions. But issues with how they’re used are common.

These include overuse (using a medicine when it may be harmful), under-use (not using a medicine when it could be beneficial) and inappropriate use (using a medicine in a way that may change its intended effects).

This can cause other serious health problems, make chronic conditions worse, and lead to unplanned hospitalisation and even death.

In OECD countries such as Australia, as many as one in ten hospitalisations are caused by a medication problem.

These high rates show there is currently not enough support for people to use medicines safely and effectively.

A preventable problem

Our 2025 research highlighted the extent of the issue for First Nations people for the first time.

We analysed five years of linked hospital and primary health-care data for 80,232 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland.

We found between 16% and 74% of hospitalisations for cardiovascular issues, including heart attacks and strokes, were linked to preventable medication problems.

Our results showed higher rates of preventable hospitalisations in rural areas compared to remote and urban areas. This may be due to fewer GPs and less access to services in these areas.

There are some limitations to this data, as medicine use is not consistently recorded in remote areas. But as we used linked data across primary care and hospital services, the results are highly representative for Queensland.

How to make medicine use safer

For most people, community pharmacists are a highly accessible source of advice. Not only can they provide information about a medicine when they fill someone’s script, they can also do a comprehensive review of all the medications a person takes and write a report for their doctor.

But pharmacists may not be a culturally safe resource for First Nations people.

Culturally safe care is free from racism and discrimination. It means health-care providers understand that colonisation can still be felt in power imbalances between them and First Nations people. So they work to build trusting relationships to make the person receiving care comfortable.

For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may not feel comfortable asking for help from a pharmacist wearing a white coat, based on a platform and behind a screen in a dispensary.

So one way to reduce medicine-related problems for First Nations people is to improve access to advice about medicines use in a culturally safe way, where they can build relationships.

The federal government currently funds pharmacist services designed to help people with medication problems. But they don’t do anything to address cultural safety.

What culturally responsive care looks like

Our new research shows what can actually work to reduce Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s medication problems.

We designed and evaluated a culturally responsive medication service for 225 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in urban, rural and remote locations in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. They were at risk of health problems from medication use. Participants also had a chronic condition, were pregnant or had given birth within the last two years.

We found the service reduced the number of serious medication problems, and significantly increased the likelihood participants would take medications that were needed, and increased people’s confidence in how to manage their medicines.

Here’s what we found works:

• allowing the person to choose a safe place for a medicines review, such as the Aboriginal Health Service. Currently, the funding rules require services to be provided at home, which is not preferred by many people

• allowing other trusted care providers – not only GPs – to refer someone for a medication review and introduce the pharmacist if needed. These could include Aboriginal Health Workers and nurses

• requiring pharmacists and pharmacy staff to undertake cultural awareness training and use strengths-based motivational interviewing when reviewing medications. This is a way of having yarns that helps identify support people and things that keep you strong, as well as setting goals.

Evidence also shows having pharmacists embedded within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services can improve First Nations people’s health, including lower blood pressure and cholesterol.

One of the people who used the culturally appropriate service designed in our research described their new relationship with the local pharmacist:

Mostly, Aboriginal people are wary of strangers, wary of people with that position [of power] asking questions on a personal level. Well, she made us feel comfortable and able to spill our guts. […] I don’t know how she made us do that but it was unanimous… She’s really affected us in the most positive way possible just with one short visit… We always talk about her.

Simple misunderstandings about medicines can have life-changing consequences.

Our findings show that by funding a tailored medication review program for Indigenous people, the government could help reduce medication harm for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We acknowledge the support of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to undertake our research. We also thank Mike Stephens from NACCHO for his contribution to this article.

– ref. ‘She made us feel comfortable’: how trusting and safe pharmacy services improve First Nations health – https://theconversation.com/she-made-us-feel-comfortable-how-trusting-and-safe-pharmacy-services-improve-first-nations-health-256697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shelly Butcher, PhD candidate in Wildlife Disease, The University of Queensland

When a coastal carpet python was brought into a wildlife hospital in South East Queensland in August 2024, vets were confronted with something they didn’t recognise. The python had damaged scales, crusted lesions across its body and a mysterious fungal infection that defied explanation.

When the results from skin tests came back, they revealed snake fungal disease, caused by Ophidiomyces ophidiicola, an emerging fungal pathogen linked to snake declines overseas. This was the first confirmed report in free-ranging wild Australian snakes.

In our new research, we detail this finding and two more novel fungal pathogens detected in skin samples taken from sick reptiles. All three infections produce disfiguring skin lesions. Two of the three new threats were not previously known to affect wild reptiles in Australia.

This isn’t a welcome discovery. Australia is home to an extraordinary diversity of reptiles – the highest of any country. But many species are in decline, due to climate change, habitat loss, invasive species and urbanisation.

Fungal infections aren’t usually a problem for warm-blooded animals, as most fungi can’t survive our high body temperatures. But for ectothermic (cold-blooded) reptiles and amphibians, fungi can pose a devastating threat. Chytrid fungus has triggered an ongoing wave of frog extinctions – including in Australia. We must protect reptiles from similar threats.

What did we find?

We analysed skin samples from ten sick reptiles between April 2023 and September 2024. Each had mild to severe skin lesions. They included an eastern water dragon, two eastern bearded dragons, one eastern bandy-bandy snake, one white-crowned snake and five coastal carpet pythons.

In some cases, their infection was so severe it caused crusted lesions along the entire body, prevented normal skin shedding, and caused extreme emaciation and weakness. Tragically, many reptiles had deteriorated so badly that euthanasia was the most humane option.

When we tested skin samples from these sick reptiles, we found three fungal threats from the Onygenaceae family cropping up in new hosts or locations.

1. Ophidiomyces ophidiicola – commonly known as snake fungal disease. We detected it for the first time in free-ranging Australian wildlife, causing debilitating disease in three native Australian snake species.
2. Nannizziopsis barbatae – a pathogen already known to affect wild Australian lizards, and recently highlighted in water dragons in Queensland. We report its first global detection in a snake.
3. Paranannizziopsis spp. – detected for the first time in free-ranging Australian wildlife, causing disease in eastern bearded dragons and coastal carpet pythons.

Reptiles are vulnerable

As climate change boosts global temperatures, alters ecosystems and stresses wildlife, a dangerous combination emerges. Stressed animals become more susceptible to infection, and the fungi themselves become more widespread.

Losing reptile and amphibian species to fungal diseases is devastating. Reptiles play crucial roles in our ecosystems, quietly keeping pest populations in check and helping to maintain healthy landscapes.

In recent years, herping – the reptile equivalent of birding – has become more popular.

As interest has risen, so has public concern. The only reason we know about these fungal diseases is because observant community members noticed unwell animals and sought help. Early detection remains one of our most powerful tools for understanding and containing wildlife disease.

What can you do?

Citizen scientists, wildlife enthusiasts and members of the community can all contribute.

By recognising signs of illness, reporting sick animals and practising responsible behaviour around wildlife, Australians can help protect our reptiles from these emerging fungal threats.

Report sick reptiles to track disease spread

• If you see a sick reptile, keep your distance and look for brown or yellow crusty skin lesions, abnormal shedding, swelling, wounds that don’t heal or unusually lethargic behaviour.
• If it’s safe, take clear photos and record the location.
• Contact your local wildlife rescue group, wildlife hospital or vet.
• Submit sightings to local wildlife authorities or citizen science platforms such as iNaturalist.
• Early reporting helps researchers track and manage disease spread.

Never release pet reptiles

• Captive reptiles can carry pathogens which can be harmless to them but devastating to wild populations.
• If you can’t care for your pet reptile, contact an animal rescue organisation or registered rehoming group. Never release pets into the wild.

Observe responsibly

• Avoid handling wild reptiles. In many regions this requires specific permits.
• If you are an authorised and trained handler and must move an animal, ensure your hands and equipment are cleaned between animals and locations.

What’s next?

Our novel findings in free-ranging Australian reptiles from one region in Queensland suggests there may be a hidden crisis.

We’re now surveying reptiles more broadly to understand how widespread these fungal infections are, which species are most at risk, and what environmental conditions favour disease spread.

Left unmanaged, these fungal infections could spread to threatened reptiles such as leaf tailed geckos, blind snakes, earless dragons and Nangur spiny skinks with disastrous consequences.

Understanding these diseases and controlling their spread will be essential if we are to protect Australia’s remarkable reptiles.

Wildlife vet Dr Bertrand Ng contributed to writing this article.

– ref. We discovered lethal new fungal diseases in wild Australian reptiles. It’s time to act fast – https://theconversation.com/we-discovered-lethal-new-fungal-diseases-in-wild-australian-reptiles-its-time-to-act-fast-275817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudia Young, PhD Candidate in Media and Communications, The University of Melbourne

The current season of Married at First Sight is shaping up to be one of the most controversial yet, with the inclusion of Tyson Gordon demonstrating how the manosphere has breached containment.

While the producers and Channel 9 bear some responsibility for who they choose to feature on the show, the problem at hand is much larger than them.

Crash course on the manosphere

The “manosphere” emerged in the 1990s and early 2000s – but gained momentum during Gamergate in 2014. It’s made up of online subcultures – including incels, pick-up artists and “men’s rights activists” – characterised by their virulent misogyny.

Although specific ideologies vary, the manosphere is united by its opposition to feminism and its pseudo-scientific belief in gender essentialism: that gender is innate, and women and men are biologically wired to possess distinct traits.

This worldview sees men as inherently dominant and women as inherently submissive. It ultimately seeks to put both men and women into boxes that limit and control them.

Where these groups were once relegated to niche corners of the internet, in recent years they have been algorithmically amplified – in large part thanks to controversial “manfluencers” such as Andrew Tate – resulting in a wider spread of their beliefs.

Their ideas have found success particular with impressionable boys and young men, especially in a context of increased economic precarity, which the manosphere purports to have the answers to.

According to a 2024 survey of Australian men aged 16 to 34, 15% disagreed with the statement “women deserve equal rights to men” – up from 6% in 2019.

Read more: The ‘Lost Boys’ of Gen Z: how Trump won the hearts of alienated young men

From Trump’s appearances on manosphere-adjacent podcasts in the lead-up to the 2025 election, to Elon Musk’s frequent allusions to the “red pill”, the manosphere’s influence on politics and culture is impossible to ignore.

The manosphere infiltrates Australian TV

Married at First Sight (MAFS) is one of Australia’s most popular reality television shows.

Billed as a “social experiment”, the premise is simple: two strangers “marry” each other when they meet for the first time at the altar.

They proceed to live together, undergoing various challenges designed to test their relationship (and manufacture drama), ostensibly mimicking the hurdles they might face as a couple in the real world. At a weekly “commitment ceremony”, participants can choose to stay, or leave.

This season, one of the featured couples is Tyson Gordon and Stephanie Marshall. While both are avowedly “anti-woke”, Tyson in particular has received backlash from both the audience and his trial wife for his rigid expectations.

In addition to not wanting a “feminist who hates men”, he expresses his distaste for women with “a high body count”.

This is a well-trodden line in the manosphere, where a woman’s worth is determined by the number of sexual partners she has had. Men, of course, aren’t held to the same standard. At the same time, when Stephanie tells Tyson she’s never been in a relationship he worries she might be too “frigid”.

On paper, Stephanie is everything Tyson has asked for. Even so, he is put off by her independence and career-focused attitude and quickly dismisses her: “I want […] someone that is submissive and not masculine”.

The normiefication of fringe views

Tyson is far from the first man in the MAFS franchise to uphold patriarchal views. Every season, one or two self-identified “alpha males” are cast to sow controversy and boost ratings. However, Tyson’s turn of phrase demonstrates the direct influence of the manosphere.

Even if he held misogynistic beliefs before the popularisation of Tate and his ilk, they have nonetheless given him the language to articulate his views. Stephanie recognises this: “It’s giving manosphere,” she says after their wedding.

Despite push-back from Stephanie, other cast members and the audience, Tyson’s casting represents the “normiefication” of the manosphere.

Normiefication precedes normalisation; it exposes the beliefs to a broader audience, but does not necessarily indicate their acceptance. Nonetheless, the exposure itself contributes to the shift of the “Overton window” (the range of views and opinions seen as acceptable by the majority of a population at a given time) towards a culture in which sexist perspectives are deemed legitimate.

By framing women who challenge him as “masculine”, Tyson resurfaces regressive tropes feminism has long fought to overcome – and which the manosphere is working to revive.

A bigger problem than MAFS

Channel 9 and the producers of MAFS have an ethical duty to protect their participants from harm.

In 2025, the series came under fire for normalising behaviour associated with intimate partner violence. It seems they haven’t learnt their lesson. The pursuit of ratings continues to come at the expense of women.

This is unlikely to change until something horrific happens. In 2021, United Kingdom regulator Ofcom introduced stronger protections for reality television participants following a series of reality star deaths.

The mainstreaming of the manosphere doesn’t begin or end with MAFS. It is indicative of a broader political and cultural trend in which misogyny is being reinstated as an ideological norm. MAFS is helping expedite this process, along with online platform algorithms and far-right political projects.

Combating these narratives is difficult. While improved media literacy may help, it’s only one piece of a complicated puzzle. It is important we continue to push back against such beliefs in whatever way we can, lest women’s civil and political liberties are further eroded.

– ref. ‘I want someone submissive’: Married At First Sight gives the manosphere a prime time slot – https://theconversation.com/i-want-someone-submissive-married-at-first-sight-gives-the-manosphere-a-prime-time-slot-276974

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyllie Cripps, Director Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, CI ARC Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence against Women (CEVAW), School of Philosophical, Historical & International Studies (SOPHIS), School of Social Sciences (SOSS), Faculty of Arts, Monash University

This article contains references to and the names of people who are now deceased.

Australia’s latest homicide data lay bare a grim reality for Indigenous women: lethal domestic violence is not abating.

The Australian Institute of Criminology’s report confirms what communities have long known – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are killed at rates up to six times higher than non-Indigenous women, overwhelmingly by intimate partners (76%) or family members.

Just eight weeks into 2026, four more Indigenous women have died violently in such circumstances, including the devastating Lake Cargelligo killings of Sophie Quinn along with her unborn child, “baby Troy”, her partner and her aunt, Nerida Quinn.

For grieving families, the questions are raw: are we just another statistic? Will there be justice? And what does justice even mean?

Over-representation is entrenched

The institute’s National Homicide Monitoring Program offers a stark longitudinal picture: 574 Indigenous women killed from 1989 to 2025, with at least two-thirds killed by an intimate partner (based on reports from previous years). There’s no significant downward trend.

Since the institute began tracking the victimisation rate in 2011, Indigenous women have remained far more likely to be killed than non-Indigenous women.

Yet as the 2024 Senate Inquiry into Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children found, quantitative data alone do not translate to justice. Systemic racism in policing, inadequate investigations and “woefully inaccurate” records compound the loss families experience.

The Lake Cargelligo case exemplifies this crisis. The alleged shooter, Julian Ingram – Sophie Quinn’s former partner – remains at large after the deaths of Sophie, her unborn child, her aunt and her partner. The community is in both fear and mourning.

Media fixation on the manhunt often eclipses the brunt of the devastation. Sophie and Nerida were daughters, mothers, aunties and kin. John Harris was a brother, son and partner. They were not just abstract victims.

A fragmented system

Beyond the killings, families face a labyrinthine aftermath. There’s no single agency to guide them through criminal processes, trials (if it gets that far), coronial inquests, death reviews, media scrutiny and social media storms.

Fragmented services – such as state-based victim support to time-limited counselling – demand families navigate complicated systems largely on their own when they are most vulnerable.

Coronial processes are often criticised as culturally unsafe and re-traumatising. These can take place after criminal proceedings, sometimes years later, and can prolong trauma.

Indigenous families report feeling the stories of their loved ones being silenced or stigmatised, or only partial narratives being shared. These public versions can clash with the memories they have of their loved ones.

In New Zealand, the Family Violence Death Review Committee has advocated a “super-advocate” model with dedicated cultural support.

Here in Australia, even landmark inquests into Indigenous women’s deaths yield slow government responses, or none at all, leaving families to contest public stories alone.

Public discourse often reduces Indigenous women to pathology or risk, disregarding the kinship webs that defined them as loving and valued members of our communities. They deserve to be honoured as so many other Australian women have been: through dignified memorials, public acknowledgement and stories of their full humanity.

But sadly, as First Nations women, we are not. Without a mandated advocate to shield families and centre Indigenous accounts through the aftermath of a homicide, grief becomes a rollercoaster of conflicting portrayals.

Narrative sovereignty means Indigenous families hold the reins on the stories told about their loved ones. This allows First Nations people to craft, share and protect their people with the respect and ethical care kinship demands.

A dedicated “holding agency”, activated immediately upon a death, would provide a mechanism for this.

While the NZ model does not specifically state this, an Australian model could field media requests, coach families on securing social media accounts against trolls and speculation, and curate all public messaging on the family’s terms and timeline.

This isn’t just public relations. It’s trauma-informed stewardship that safeguards physical safety, honours grief’s nonlinear pace and ensures these women are never reduced to clickbait.

Words need action

There is progress being made, albeit slowly. The newly released National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Plan to End Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence is a crucial step forward.

Called “Our Ways, Strong Ways, Our Voices”, it explicitly honours our missing and murdered women and children, and commits to supporting their families through culturally grounded, community-led responses.

Yet until an action plan emerges to translate this intent into resourced, measurable steps, these remain powerful words on a page, at risk of joining the shelf of unfulfilled commitments alongside the Senate inquiry’s “toothless” recommendations.

For too many Indigenous families, justice has come to mean a perpetrator’s arrest and conviction – if that even happens – followed by a coronial finding filed away. There’s no restoration for the community rupture or protection for those still at risk.

It’s a narrow, carceral lens that measures success by court outcomes, not by whether the Quinn family or the Lake Cargelligo community as a whole can heal or feel safer.

Another round of inquiries, such as the petition calling for a Royal Commission into the killing of Australian women and girls, simply kicks the can down the road.

Indigenous women need action now. We cannot wait while others debate process when we’ve already endured countless reviews without meaningful change.

True justice would honour culturally-led healing. It would allow Indigenous families to tell their own stories and break cycles before another mother and unborn child is lost.

Governments must urgently develop and fund an action plan to support Our Ways, Strong Ways, Our Voices. They should also look at how else to support Indigenous families when they’re affected by death and violence.

The homicide data and Senate findings are not endpoints, but calls to action. We must honour these women by ensuring justice means safety, accountability and dignity for those who remain. Until then, families’ questions will be left unanswered, and the statistics will climb.

13YARN is a free and confidential 24/7 national crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are feeling overwhelmed or having difficulty coping. Call 13 92 76.

– ref. Too many Indigenous women are killed by domestic violence. They are more than just numbers – https://theconversation.com/too-many-indigenous-women-are-killed-by-domestic-violence-they-are-more-than-just-numbers-276264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Crawford, Adjunct Lecturer at the Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology

The 2026 Women’s Asian Cup is the first major women’s soccer tournament Australia has hosted since the groundbreaking 2023 Women’s World Cup.

The 12-team event, which will be held in Perth, Sydney and the Gold Coast, started on Sunday with the Matildas winning their first match against the Philippines. They next play Iran on Thursday night.

The tournament also doubles as a qualifier for the 2027 Women’s World Cup and represents a chance for the Matildas to win a major tournament on home soil.

While there will no doubt be huge interest in the tournament, particularly if the Matildas continue to do well, it is also an opportunity to look at the challenges facing women’s sport in general and women’s soccer in particular in the lead-up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.

The impact of the 2023 World Cup

The 2023 Women’s World Cup was the largest major women’s sport event Australia has (co-)hosted.

It marked a significant moment in women’s sport in Australia.

It provided a space so welcoming that many self-described sports haters and fans alienated by the hypermasculinity of men’s sports were drawn to it.

It delivered a socially contagious collective experience that was diverse, representative, and feel-good.

It also showed investing in women’s sport is good business.

With more than 1.75 million tickets sold and with television audience figures exceeding even those of the AFL grand final and NRL’s State of Origin, the 2023 tournament set new benchmarks for women’s sport’s visibility and commercialisation.

The Matildas are now one of Australia’s most recognisable and marketable national sports brands. They sell out match after match, outsell Socceroos jerseys 2:1 and have commanded the “Matildas effect” – a byword for perception- and participation-changing influence and gender equality advancement.

The 2026 Women’s Asian Cup, which for the first time features its own mascot and with it accompanying engagement and merchandise opportunities, will want to leverage and extend that inclusiveness, brand and market.

More work needs to be done

While the Matildas specifically and women’s sport internationally – from basketball to ice hockey – have become more popular and more profitable, that hasn’t translated domestically.

The A-League women’s competition suffered a 26% attendance decline in 2024–25 and underinvestment in the league means players are unable to secure full-time, year-round employment.

While outlier top-tier Australian soccer players earn high salaries, 39% of women athletes don’t earn anything from sport.

A 2025 report from Australian soccer’s player development program showed many athletes are struggling with challenges around disordered eating, alcohol and anxiety.

Read more: The Matildas keep soaring but the league, and players, beneath them are being left behind

Women coaches also experience more adversity than men.

At a policy and advocacy level, the country’s sole Office for Women in Sport and Recreation has been disbanded by the Victorian government, and Australia still lacks a national strategy for women’s sport.

Bridging the national team-domestic league gap will be front of mind for administrators during and beyond the Women’s Asian Cup to ensure sustainability.

Areas for improvement

There will be no increase to Women’s Asian Cup prize money at the 2026 tournament – it will remain at US$1.8 million (A$2.55 million) shared between the top four teams, the same as 2022.

Compare this with the US$14.8 million ($A21 million) allocated to the men in 2023.

That 88% prize money gap signals much work still needs to be done to facilitate equality.

Media coverage is similarly lagging. While it has increased from the box-ticking “one and done” media coverage of the past, it remains largely event-based.

Social media is plugging the major media gap, raising players’ profiles and providing transformative engagement but it often entails unpaid labour to maintain an online presence.

It also exposes athletes to greater levels of online abuse.

Opportunities on and off the pitch

The 2026 Women’s Asian Cup represents a chance to prove the hype around women’s soccer is more than a one-time thing. Simultaneously, it needs to avoid counterproductive “boom time, again” narratives that emerge about every decade espousing that women’s sport has “made it”.

It also represents an opportunity to take women’s soccer in Australia to the next level.

Despite the Matildas developing a huge fan following and demonstrating much promise, not since the 2010 Asian Cup has the team been able to bring home a trophy.

The 2006 and 2010 Asian Cups (when Australia finished runners-up and champion respectively) showed the Matildas could compete.

The 2023 Women’s World Cup showed the world there was a market.

This year’s Women’s Asian Cup represents a chance to bring the two together as the Matildas seek to realise their potential and ensure sustainability by both filling stadiums and bringing home silverware.

It is a significant opportunity for the team to show it can win both off and on the pitch.

– ref. Matildas effect 2.0? Why the Women’s Asian Cup is a huge moment for Australian soccer – https://theconversation.com/matildas-effect-2-0-why-the-womens-asian-cup-is-a-huge-moment-for-australian-soccer-275428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Principal Research Fellow, Cancer Elimination Collaboration, University of Sydney; The University of Melbourne

At least 20,000 Australian women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. And more than 3,300 die from the disease.

To save women’s lives, we need to detect breast cancer early. Breast screening, which halves women’s risk of dying from breast cancer, is key to that.

A new Australian study published today in The Lancet Digital Health suggests AI could help improve how we screen for breast cancer.

How do we currently screen for breast cancer?

Since 1992, Australia has offered free breast X-rays, known as mammograms, every two years to women aged between 50 and 74. Just over half of eligible women participate.

Of the women found to have cancer, about 25% are diagnosed between the biennial screens. These “interval cancers” are often aggressive and, unfortunately, more likely to be fatal.

In some cases, a more sensitive screening test may have detected them earlier.

The role of AI

Australia’s BreastScreen program was established in response to several major clinical trials conducted between the 1960s and 1980s. The screening technology used by the program has not substantially changed since then.

Researchers are now exploring risk-adjusted screening, which tailors screening to women based on their risk, as a way to detect more cancers earlier. This may include programs offering different technologies for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer.

Currently, we generally assess cancer risk via questionnaires that help identify if a woman has any risk factors associated with breast cancer.

One risk factor is breast density which refers to how much glandular tissue is in the breast. As well as being a risk factor for breast cancer, the higher a woman’s breast density, the harder it is to detect cancer on a mammogram.

We can also use one-off genetic testing to identify women with a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. This involves looking for high-risk gene mutations such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with increased breast and ovarian cancer risk. Genetic testing can also help us estimate a person’s lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

More recently, researchers have been investigating artificial intelligence (AI) as a new approach to assess breast cancer risk. A new Australian study, published in The Lancet Digital Health today, focused on a specific AI tool known as BRAIx.

What did the study involve? And what did it find?

This study used an AI tool, known as BRAIx, trained using BreastScreen Australia data to help radiologists assess mammograms.

The study assessed how well BRAIx predicted women’s risk of developing breast cancer in the next four years, among women who had a clear mammogram.

Of the 95,823 Australian women assessed, 1.1% (1,098) had developed breast cancer in the four years after they received a clear mammogram. Of the 4,430 Swedish women assessed, 6.9% had developed breast cancer within two years of a clear screen.

The study findings show that BRAIx scores were very useful for identifying women who were more likely to develop cancer one to two years after having a clear screen. Findings from the Australian dataset suggest BRAIx scores identified cancers found three to four years later, but with less accuracy.

These findings suggest BRAIx could help identify women who might benefit from additional tests. This may include an MRI (which uses a magnetic field to produce images of organs and tissue) or contrast-enhanced mammography (which uses an iodine dye to improve the visibility of a regular mammogram).

These findings reinforce a 2024 Swedish study that used an AI-based risk assessment to select women for additional testing. The researchers referred 7% of women to have a follow-up MRI, and 6.5% of were found to have cancers missed by mammograms.

Does the study have any limitations?

As with most studies, yes. Here are two.

• it’s difficult to compare BRAIx to genetic testing. This is because BRAIx is trained to find missed or emerging cancers over a four year period. In contrast, genetic testing identifies a person’s risk of developing cancer over their lifetime

• it might not use the best breast density data. This study found BRAIx more accurately predicts breast cancer risk compared to assessments based on breast density. But this breast density data was collected using a different tool to those used by the Breastscreen program. So this finding should be interpreted carefully.

So, where to from here?

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that AI risk assessment could help breast screening programs find cancers earlier.

BRAIx is now being trialled as part of the BreastScreen Victoria program, to help read mammograms. And other states are already using and evaluating different AI tools for reading mammograms.

So it may be time for Australia to conduct a national, independent review of these new tools. As part of a more risk-adjusted approach to breast screening, they could save lives.

– ref. AI could help us more accurately screen for breast cancer – new research – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-help-us-more-accurately-screen-for-breast-cancer-new-research-277079

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremie M Bracka, Law Lecturer and Transitional Justice Academic, RMIT University

As both the federal government and states across the country pass laws cracking down on hate speech, there’s been much debate about where to draw the line on what can and can’t be said.

A Victorian tribunal has drawn that line in a landmark decision. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has found chanting “all Zionists are terrorists” at a Melbourne rally amounted to unlawful racial and religious vilification.

In the case, called Vorchheimer vs Tayeh, Vice President Judge Tran held that initiating the chant at a pro-Palestinian protest breached parts of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

The detailed ruling sheds light on how some judges are approaching these complicated questions. Here’s what it said.

What the tribunal found

The tribunal was not asked to rule on Zionism or Israel’s military actions. Its task was narrower: whether leading the chant “all Zionists are terrorists” at a large Melbourne rally was likely to incite “hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule” against Jewish people on racial or religious grounds.

Judge Tran focused on three words.

The first was “terrorists”. She described this as “one of the most extremely negative labels it is possible to attach to a person”, someone “against whom violent action is justified” and whom it is “societally acceptable to hate”.

The next word was “Zionists”. The tribunal accepted “Zionist does not mean Jew”. But it found the term carries “a deep connection with Jewish people” in historical and statistical terms.

Evidence to the tribunal showed most Australian Jews identify as Zionist in some form. Judge Tran concluded there was likely a “very strong association” between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of rally participants.

And finally, the word “all”. The word carried “the spectre of de-individuation, a hallmark of racism”. There was “no permission for shades of grey or human complexity”.

In assessing legality, the tribunal considered the full rally context, including Holocaust imagery and antisemitic tropes on placards. Although the signs did not explicitly name Jews, the tribunal found repeated Nazi and Holocaust references strengthened the association between “Zionists” and Jewish identity in the minds of participants.

The tribunal also noted an “observable antisemitic and pro-violent presence” at the rally. In that setting, chanting “all Zionists are terrorists” did not operate as abstract political critique. Its “natural and ordinary effect” was to “tip many rally participants over the threshold into hatred directed towards Jewish people”.

Political vs personal

The tribunal stressed that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is not concerned with outlawing criticism.

Hasheam Tayeh, who said the phrase in question, argued he was engaging in political protest.

But the tribunal held there is “no right to a catchy rally slogan” if it is inherently likely to incite hatred.

The chant was not confined to criticising the Israeli government after October 7 2023. It was directed, at a minimum, against “all supporters of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state”, the court found.

Given the tribunal’s finding that the vast majority of Australian Jews identify as Zionist in some form, the chant was therefore likely to stir hostility toward a group closely associated with Jewish identity.

The political protest defence therefore failed because the conduct was not shown to be reasonable and in good faith. The boundary is clear: speech may attack ideas, but not stir hostility against people because of who they are.

Why this matters nationally

The Victorian tribunal has drawn a clear doctrinal line. Labelling an undifferentiated group closely associated with Jewish identity as “terrorists” can amount to unlawful vilification.

Although decided by a Victorian tribunal rather than a superior court, the reasoning is likely to resonate nationally.

Most Australian jurisdictions prohibit racial vilification. At the federal level, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act sets a lower threshold: conduct reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on racial grounds.

The decision comes amid a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents across Australia since late 2023, with community bodies reporting record levels of threats, vandalism and intimidation.

The Bondi terror attack, which targeted a Hanukkah gathering, intensified national concern about extremist rhetoric and community safety.

Against that backdrop, courts are increasingly being asked to distinguish protest from incitement.

Words in real life

But the decision contrasts with the Federal Court ruling last year in a case called Wertheim v Haddad.

In this case, the court, which is superior in the court hierarchy to the Victorian tirbunal, found certain lectures by preacher William Haddad conveyed antisemitic imputations, including claims that Jews control the media and politicians and that “the Jewish people are filthy”.

Yet other remarks criticising Israel and “Zionists” were treated as political commentary.

In the Victorian case, Judge Tran did not treat “Zionist” as an abstract ideological label. She examined how it functioned in social and historical context, including the antisemitic atmosphere in which the chant was delivered.

One approach parses language semantically. The other asks how it lands in real life.

In a climate where extremist rhetoric has intersected with real-world violence including reports that alleged Bondi attacker Naveed Akram was allegedly a follower of preacher Haddad, context is not theoretical. It can matter.

Context with consequences

The ruling will feed into the ongoing debate about how Australia regulates hate speech. It shows existing laws can address coded vilification, not only explicit slurs.

At the same time, the tribunal was careful: criticism of Israel is not unlawful, nor is opposition to Zionism automatically hate speech.

The legal line is crossed when rhetoric assigns a heinous criminal identity to an entire class of people closely associated with a racial or religious group, in circumstances where hatred is the likely result.

In a polarised environment, that boundary will remain contested. But this decision signals that courts will look beyond labels and ask how language operates in context. And in the real world, context can have consequences.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly attributed the case to a court. It was in fact heard in a tribunal. The text has been amended to reflect this.

– ref. A tribunal has drawn a clear line on antisemitic hate speech. Here’s what it said – https://theconversation.com/a-tribunal-has-drawn-a-clear-line-on-antisemitic-hate-speech-heres-what-it-said-277095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

The National-led coalition government missed a clear opportunity to defend the international rules-based order in its response to the joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

It was a glaring omission, given New Zealand and most countries rely heavily on that system to rein in the worst excesses of power.

Under article 51 of the UN Charter, states have the legal right to use force in self-defence in response to an armed attack.

But neither the US nor Israel was being attacked when they launched widespread air strikes on Iran’s missile infrastructure, military sites and senior leadership on February 28.

Indeed, just two days earlier in Geneva, the US had concluded a round of negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme. The talks were reportedly positive, with both sides agreeing to meet again.

An exception to international restrictions on the use of force does allow a state to respond to an “imminent threat”.

However, while the Trump administration and the Israeli government have claimed their attacks were preemptive, there is little or no evidence to indicate Iran was on the verge of threatening either country.

Indeed, after a 12-day war with Iran last year, Israel claimed to have destroyed half of Iran’s missile stockpiles. The US – which briefly entered the war on Israel’s side – claimed it had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

Confusing cause and effect

Given all this, the ongoing attacks by the US and Israel – which have also killed Iran’s head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – have to be viewed as illegal, premeditated and a further erosion of an international rules-based order.

But New Zealand’s measured diplomatic response has largely failed to recognise that reality.

The recent government statement released by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters assigned responsibility for the escalating crisis largely to Iran.

The statement had nothing to say about whether the actions taken by the US and Israel were illegal. It maintained the attacks “were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security”.

In contrast, the government condemned “in the strongest terms Iran’s indiscriminate retaliatory attacks on Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan”.

Not only did this appear to confuse cause and effect, it also seemed contradictory. While the statement implied the US-Israeli attacks were justified, it still called for “a resumption of negotiations” and “adherence to international law”.

The confusion was amplified by Christopher Luxon claimed when he said, “we understand fully why the Americans and Israelis have undertaken the independent action” – but that it was up to the US and Israel to explain the legal basis for the attack.

Middle-power impotence

New Zealand’s tentative response has overlapped considerably with its allies, but there have also been differences.

Australia, Canada and the UK have similarly declined to question the legality of the attacks, and have largely blamed the repressive clerical regime in Iran for creating a climate that led to the current crisis.

Official statements from those countries have condemned the Iranian regime for killing thousands of innocent protesters, attempting to destabilise the region, launching indiscriminate retaliatory strikes and pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.

Britain refrained from explicitly backing the US-Israeli action, but has subsequently agreed to a US request to use British military bases for “defensive” strikes on Iranian missile sites.

Unlike New Zealand and the UK, Australia and Canada have publicly expressed “support” for the US – but not Israeli – efforts “to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security”.

Despite Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent speech at the World Economic Forum where he argued middle and small powers were not “powerless” in the current global context, his stance on Iran belies such rhetoric.

Carney now finds himself in the curious position of aligning Canada with Donald Trump’s war against Iran while his own country is periodically threatened with invasion by the US.

Not in NZ’s interests

On balance, the New Zealand government has failed to demonstrate the moral and legal clarity that the escalating crisis in the Middle East now requires.

If it is consoling itself that US-Israeli aggression is somehow acceptable when applied to the repressive and cruel regime in Teheran, it should be wary of accepting the aggressors’ words at face value.

Rather than having intervened militarily to improve human rights or enforce international law, it seems likelier the quest for regime change is motivated more by a desire to back Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans for a recast Middle East.

That ambition involves Israel’s regional dominance, expansion into the Occupied Territories, and excludes a Palestinian state – none of which New Zealand’s official foreign policy supports.

– ref. The US-Israel attack on Iran paints NZ foreign policy into a corner – https://theconversation.com/the-us-israel-attack-on-iran-paints-nz-foreign-policy-into-a-corner-277226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Edele, Hansen Professor in History, The University of Melbourne

Four years ago, Vladimir Putin escalated his war against Ukraine to an all-out assault. The plan was for a quick and lively campaign and a speedy takeover of a country the Russian president thought shouldn’t exist.

Victory would reassert Russia’s status and hasten a shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world; instead of one great power (the United States), we’d have several. Russia would, of course, become one of the “greats”.

So, how’d that go?

Four years on, Russia has not found itself among fellow great powers willing to divide up the globe.

A middle power despite its great power cravings, Russia has instead been forced into a growing dependence on China while having to deal with a multitude of hostile middle powers, which often thwart its ambitions.

A greater failure is hard to imagine.

Careful what you wish for

In recent days, Russia had to watch on helplessly as the US and Israel – following Russia’s playbook – ignored international law and attacked Iran, a close Russian ally.

When Iran’s foreign minister asked his Russian counterpart for help, Sergei Lavrov sounded more like a European politician than an advocate for a new world order.

He condemned the “unprovoked act of armed aggression […] in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law”. He called for a “peaceful solution based in international law, mutual respect and a balanced consideration of interests”.

As The Guardian put it, Russia has found out a

rejection of the old rules of geopolitics have not necessarily played into its favour.

Russia underestimated the extent to which the old order gave it room to manoeuvre. Then, as long as others played by the rules, breaking them could give Russia a tactical advantage.

But once others also opted for raw power, the limits of Russia’s abilities became obvious.

Reality checks

The first reality check came on the battlefield.

Russia lost the battle of Kyiv, had to retreat from much of what it had occupied in the north of Ukraine, and was forced into a grinding war of attrition in the east.

Ukraine lost big swathes of territory in the south, which allowed Russia to establish a land bridge between Donbas and Crimea (which it illegally occupied in 2014).

But Ukraine’s government retained control of 80% of its territory. It also held onto its use of the Black Sea, a vital link to world markets.

Unable to advance meaningfully on the ground, Russia tried a criminal air war targeting civilian infrastructure, hoping to freeze Ukraine into submission.

Such tactics rarely work, but do cause untold misery and suffering for civilians.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is fending off Russia’s attempt to enforce Ukraine’s capitulation at the negotiating table.

Being a great power isn’t cheap

All Russia’s efforts are complicated by the emerging multipolar world order it had so desperately hoped to conjure into being.

Ukraine has been supported by a coalition of middle powers that are slowly finding their feet in this new reality.

Russia has discovered the hard way that its geopolitical fantasy of being a great power in this new multipolar world order comes with one tiny problem: it can’t afford it.

Its population is both declining and ageing. Its GDP (adjusted to purchasing power) is in the same ballpark as that of Japan or Germany (rather than the much larger India, to say nothing of the US or China).

And its economy is dominated by hydrocarbon exports destined for a bleak future in a quickly decarbonising world.

As one of the most consequential middle powers of the Euro-Asian landmass, with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and a sizeable military armed with nuclear weapons, it could cause significant damage trying to assert its desired great power status.

But the results were opposite to intentions.

From bad to worse

Unable to subdue Ukraine, Russia’s power projection suffered elsewhere. Its once-close relationship with Israel is on the rocks. It lost its foothold in Syria and has proved unable to support its allies in Iran and Venezuela.

In a lawless international order, it is too inconsequential to dictate the play.

While US President Donald Trump at times treats Putin as an equal, nobody else does.

True, China has celebrated a “no-limits partnership” with Russia, its biggest neighbour.

But it neither took clear sides in Russia’s Ukraine war, nor sent weapons. Instead, Beijing used Russia’s isolation to cement a relationship in which it clearly has the upper hand.

India increased its purchase of Russian oil (now at a steep discount) and continued to buy Russian weapons, but as part of a multi-vector geopolitical strategy.

Rather than a fellow great power, India saw Russia as an opportunity to be exploited in its ongoing quest for an autonomous foreign policy.

Fantasy and reality

Ukraine, meanwhile, lost the clear support from the US it had enjoyed at the start of the war, but has been supported financially and militarily by a flexible coalition of middle powers.

According to the latest data, the nearly US$75 billion (A$105 billion) in military aid the US has provided since the start of the war has amounted to only 30% of the total tally.

The remaining 70%, and all ongoing military support in the past 12 months, came from middle and smaller powers, led by Germany (20%), the United Kingdom (9%), Norway (8%) and Sweden (7%).

Thus, Russia’s war on Ukraine did hasten the emergence of a multipolar world.

It just wasn’t the one Russia had in mind.

– ref. Russia wanted a new world order. This wasn’t the one it had in mind – https://theconversation.com/russia-wanted-a-new-world-order-this-wasnt-the-one-it-had-in-mind-277195