First elected to parliament in 2007 at the age of 25, Sarah Hanson-Young is now the Greens’ longest serving federal politician.

Asked to compare this current term to the Albanese government’s first three years in power, Hanson-Young said the Greens had been busier negotiating with the government. She said new Greens’ leader Larissa Waters’ philosophy was to “get stuff done”.

In the current Senate, the government is forced to deal with either the Coalition or the Greens to get legislation through. But when the government recently passed its gambling and National Disability Insurance Scheme reforms, they chose the Coalition over the Greens, much to the minor party’s frustration.

To discuss the Greens’ view of how they’re travelling halfway through this term, Hanson-Young – currently the party’s arts, communications, environment and water spokesperson – joined The Conversation’s politics podcast.

I’ve been doing this some time now. And you know each prime minister is different, but every term is even different for each prime minister. And how the prime minister of the day interacts with the Senate, particularly at a time [when] we obviously have balance of power in the Senate. This term we have had to spend a lot of time in negotiations. That wasn’t the case last time […] we weren’t in sole balance of power then.

[…] I think [Larissa Waters’] approach to things […] is she wants to get stuff done. She said that from the beginning. And she wants to do that and we are doing that. But we also have to stay true to our values and that means standing up for people who are finding it pretty tough and pretty rough right now. Especially when the government makes excuses for not doing things.

On gambling reform

Hanson-Young said vested interests had won out on gambling reform for now, but the push for greater reform will only get stronger due to public pressure – especially hearing the stories of “regular Australians who are hurting and have suffered” because of gambling addictions.

Let’s be really honest. Anthony Albanese never wanted to do this. He’s been dragged kicking and screaming to have to look like he’s doing something, because the vested interests are clearly at the core of this for the Labor government. They’ve got their claws into Labor and the Liberal Party. And the passage of that legislation – I mean, it is so poor. It is going to be so useless. It’s all window dressing.

[…] The vast majority of the community wanted to see those [gambling] ads gone. Whether they gamble or not, they wanted to see those ads gone and they’re not going to be gone. So the clamour and the fight is going to continue. And I know just so many people are disappointed that the Labor Party did not have the spine to take on the vested interests in that space.

On voter disillusionment

Hanson-Young said Australia was politically “fracturing all over the place”, forcing all politicians to work harder to engaged with voters.

People are angry, people are frustrated. [The] cost-of-living crisis is having an impact and particularly on the most vulnerable. People are looking around and they’re saying ‘this system isn’t working for us’. The political system that we were told to believe in and had experienced now is just not working for them. It’s certainly working for some people; it’s working for the big corporations, it’s working for the vested interests.

[…] And I think what’s happening is that there is a frustration of people, not just that the system’s not working when they need it the most, but then they’re hearing from government all these excuses about why the system can’t be fixed. And I that’s a big driver of the discontent.

[…] I think over the next 12 months, we are going to see a large number of Australians look at the major parties and go, ‘that’s not for us’. Some of them are already […] being picked up by One Nation. But those who actually want a kinder, fairer Australia are going be looking at the Greens.

On One Nation’s rise

Hanson-Young argued One Nation – which has risen in popularity to challenge to both the Coalition and Labor in the polls – is more than just a threat to the major parties.

The Greens’ vote is actually up. So I don’t think One Nation is a threat to our [Greens’] Senate seats. But […] One Nation is a threat to the type of nation we want to be. And I say that without apology.

[…] There is real grievance out there, that is absolutely true. But Pauline Hanson isn’t dealing with the grievances […] She’s one of the savviest, trickiest politicians in this place and pretends otherwise. She punches down on people, she punches down on Indigenous communities, she punches down on migrants, she punches down on single parents and single mums, she punches down on gay and lesbian Australians – and then has the gall to turn around and complain when she gets called out.

I think there is […] a kind of hand-wringing from some in progressive quarters to say, ‘oh, we can’t take her on’. Well, I just say rubbish. She has to be called out and taken on. Her voters, and those who are looking at One Nation because they’re frustrated with the system, their grievances are real. But Pauline Hanson is a phoney.

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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/03/politics-with-michelle-grattan-sarah-hanson-young-on-why-progressives-need-to-take-on-one-nation/

New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art’s planned 2027 Costume Institute exhibition, John Galliano: Horizons, has been cancelled, following Galliano’s statement that “it is best for the exhibition not to take place at this time”.

The exhibition was intended to provide a retrospective of the British designer’s highly influential, four-decade career.

But Galliano, and the museum, faced intense opposition centred on whether the Met should devote a retrospective to a designer whose legacy is closely linked to racist and antisemitic remarks.

Galliano has been an undeniably influential force in fashion. How should this influence be remembered?

A designer who transformed the industry

After graduating from London’s Central Saint Martins in 1984, Galliano emerged as one of the most innovative voices in British fashion. His graduate collection, Les Incroyables and Les Merveilleuses was inspired by post-French revolutionists. He would remain a designer whose shows tell complete and fully developed stories.

With his eponymous brand gaining continued success, he was the first British designer to head a French Haute Couture house when he became Givenchy’s creative director in 1995. He then became the creative director of Dior in October 1996, a position he held until he was unceremoniously let go in 2011.

During his time at both luxury houses, and at the helm of his own brand, Galliano redefined the role of the luxury creative director by turning his runways into grand spectacles.

He treated fashion shows like live theatre, with models acting as characters. He, too, relished in stardom, taking theatrical bows dressed in full costume (such as a matador or astronaut) at the end of his shows.

He was a modern re-interpreter of brand heritage, as he remixed historic house codes within contemporary silhouettes. This was extremely successful at Dior, which soared under his creative vision.

Celebrated for his eye for grandeur, intricate detailing and powerful storytelling, he was named British designer of the year at the British Fashion Awards four times: in 1987, 1994 1995 and 1997.

But his role as a designer would soon become overshadowed.

A career marred by controversy

In February 2011, while in a bar in Paris, Galliano reportedly shouted insults including calling patrons a “fucking ugly Jewish bitch” and a “fucking Asian bastard”. In a separate video, he was filmed saying “I love Hitler”. More video was released in the 2024 documentary High & Low, John Galliano.

Later that year he was convicted by a French court of “public insults” based on origin, religion, race or ethnicity. At the time, Galliano blamed his behaviour on addiction to alcohol, sleeping tablets and Valium.

In the years since, Galliano has apologised and spoken publicly about addiction and recovery, and attempted to rebuild his career through fashion brand Maison Margiela, which he departed in 2024.

He is currently working with the fast fashion brand Zara to “re-author” work in their collection.

But despite continuing to get work, any discussion of Galliano’s career today inevitably returns to those 2011 events.

What would a Galliano retrospective have meant?

A museum retrospective is not merely a display of objects. It is institutional recognition that signals to academics, audiences, and to future generations, that a person or their body of work holds enduring cultural, historical or artistic significance.

At the same time, it is the role of museums to engage with difficult histories.

In the cancellation announcement, curator Andrew Bolton described museums as having a responsibility to examine “difficult histories with rigour, candour and care”.

Even though he supported the cancellation, he maintained that institutions play an important role in engaging with challenging subjects.

A more critically framed retrospective could have explored not only Galliano’s influence on fashion design, but also the circumstances of his fall and subsequent attempts at rehabilitation. It could have confronted visitors with difficult questions about artists, harm and accountability.

Why the Met Gala complicates things

This controversy cannot be separated from the Met Gala. Each year, the gala is linked to the institute’s major spring exhibition – its subject becoming part of a global media spectacle.

Since 1995, the event has been overseen by Anna Wintour, Vogue’s global editorial director and Met museum trustee. Wintour described Galliano’s decision to withdraw the exhibition as “very courageous and a measure of the man he is” – a comment reflecting her longstanding support for the designer.

Wintour was instrumental in orchestrating his return to fashion via a residency at Oscar de la Renta’s studio in 2013. De la Renta himself said Galliano was “one of the most talented men” he’d ever met, and that he believed “everyone should have a second chance, especially someone as talented as John”.

This isn’t the first time the Met Gala has been the site of backlash and controversy. Similar contentions arose when Karl Lagerfeld, a problematic figure for his fat-phobic, racist and misogynistic comments, was announced as the focus of the 2023 exhibition.

The most recent gala in May was also a criticised for being co-chaired and sponsored by ostentatious tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sanchez.

Galliano remains a historically influential designer through his body of work. But recognising his influence cannot mean ignoring the harm caused by his behaviour.

Perhaps the more useful question is not whether people should engage with Galliano’s work, but how. Viewing his work today requires recognising both his influence on fashion, and the harm caused by his actions.

The challenge for museums and audiences alike is learning how to hold and critique both realities. The cancelled exhibition suggests this remains one of the most difficult cultural questions of our time.

Rachel Lamarche-Beauchesne 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/03/john-gallianos-met-gala-exhibition-was-cancelled-but-his-influence-on-fashion-cant-be-erased/

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/03/israel-ready-to-forcibly-remove-gaza-population-but-awaiting-us-approval/

In the two latest new federal polls, Morgan was good for Labor but Essential was bad. There were four federal polls taken last week, largely before the Western Australian Secret Harbour byelection.

The total vote for One Nation and the Coalition was 44% in Morgan (down four), 49% in Newspoll (up two), 49% in Essential (up two) and 50% in Redbridge (down three). The previous Redbridge was probably an outlier, so currently only Morgan doesn’t suggest the right is trending higher.

A NSW DemosAU state poll still has Labor in a dominant position, due to the split right vote and NSW’s optional preferential system.

In Canada, the centre-left governing Liberals easily won all three of Monday’s byelections (two holds and one gain from the Conservatives). US president Donald Trump has helped the Canadian Liberals remain dominant.

Essential poll

A national Essential poll, conducted August 26–30 from a sample of 1,017, gave Labor 26% of the primary vote (down five since the late July Essential poll), the Coalition 26% (up four), One Nation 23% (down two), the Greens 13% (up one), all Others 6% (steady) and undecided 5% (up one).

By respondent preferences, the Coalition led Labor by 50–45, reversing a 48–47 Labor lead in July. This is the Coalition’s biggest lead in an Essential poll since March 2024, and their biggest lead from any pollster this term.

Applying 2025 election preference flows to the primaries would put the Coalition just ahead by about 50.5–49.5. Weak respondent flows to Labor and a low Others vote are features of Essential’s polls.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped seven points to -21 (56% disapprove, 35% approve). This is a record low for him in this poll. Angus Taylor’s improved three points to -9 (41% disapprove, 32% approve).

Just 9% said they were union members and 4% political party members, while 15% were members of local sporting clubs and 11% other voluntary organisations. But 60% said unions were important for working people today (down four since July 2024).

By 55–6, respondents thought violence against women in Australia has increased rather than decreased in the last few years.

Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted August 24–30 from a sample of 1,585, gave Labor 29.5% of the primary vote (up 2.5 since the August 17–23 Morgan poll), One Nation 23.5% (down 3.5), the Coalition 20.5% (down 0.5), the Greens 13.5% (down 0.5) and all Others 13% (up two).

By respondent preferences, Labor led One Nation by 55.5–44.5, a 2.5-point gain for Labor. Labor led the Coalition by 56–44, a four-point gain for Labor. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led the Coalition by 55–45, a 2.5-point gain for Labor.

Additional questions from Redbridge poll

I previously covered the late August national Redbridge poll for The Financial Review. In additional questions, Albanese’s net favourability was up two points since late July to -17 (48–31 unfavourable), Pauline Hanson’s was down two points to -12 (48–36 unfavourable) and Taylor’s was up three points to -3 (25–22 unfavourable).

Combining the Coalition and One Nation against Labor and the Greens on the issues, the right led on cost of living by 40–33, housing affordability by 38–31, immigration by 54–24, crime by 45–24, the economy by 43–29, tax reform by 39–29 and national security by 44–26.

The left’s two leads were on healthcare by 39–34 and climate change by 44–25. Since late July, the left has gained, recovering the lead on healthcare.

The top three issues were cost of living (75% said it was a top three issue for them), healthcare (37%) and housing affordability (33%). Immigration has moved into fourth place on 27%, replacing crime.

NSW DemosAU poll

The New South Wales state election is in March 2027. A DemosAU and Premier National poll, conducted August 19–26 from a sample of 1,028, gave Labor 33% of the primary vote (steady since the mid-June DemosAU poll), the Coalition 25% (up five), One Nation 23% (down four), the Greens 13% (steady) and all Others 7% (down one).

Labor is advantaged by the split in the right-wing vote under NSW’s optional preferential system. Based on 2023 election flows, Labor leads the Coalition by 57–43 after preferences.

Half of the 42 upper seats are elected at each election by statewide proportional representation with preferences. In this poll, Labor had 31% in the upper house (up one), the Coalition 25% (up five), One Nation 24% (down three), the Greens 14% (up one) and Legalise Cannabis 2% (up one), with no other party above 1%.

On these vote shares, the pollster estimates Labor would win seven of the 21 upper house seats up next March, the Coalition five, One Nation five and the Greens three with one in doubt. Overall, Labor would have 15 seats out of 42, the Coalition 12, One Nation five, the Greens five, others four and one in doubt. Three of the four others are right-wing.

If this occurred, the overall left would have 21 of the 42 upper house seats, one short of a majority. If the left won the in doubt seat, they would have a majority.

Labor Premier Chris Minns’ net positive score was +15 (37% positive, 22% negative). Liberal leader Kellie Sloane’s was +5 (25% positive, 20% negative). Minns led Sloane as preferred premier by 44–26. By 55–27, respondents supported the NSW gun buyback scheme.

Liberals easily win three Canadian federal byelections

Byelections occurred in three Canadian federal seats on Monday. The centre-left Liberals easily won all three, holding two and gaining one from the Conservatives. This gives them a parliamentary majority with 173 of the 343 seats. A further six byelections are expected in the near future.

I covered these byelections for The Poll Bludger, and also wrote about the upcoming US midterm elections and a possible parliamentary majority for the populist right AfD at a German state election this Sunday.

Adrian Beaumont 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/03/volatile-electorate-delivers-mixed-results-for-all-parties-in-latest-polls/

By Teuila Fuatai of RNZ Pacific in Koror, Palau

The Solomon Islands is asking its fellow Pacific Island Forum (PIF) members to reconsider the presence of dialogue partners at the regional body’s annual leaders meeting, RNZ Pacific understands.

The issue was raised at a closed meeting of the PIF on Wednesday morning in Palau, with the Solomon Islands asking members to consider whether the leaders meeting should be separate from the dialogue partners’ process, RNZ Pacific understands.

The presence of partners at the annual leaders’ meeting has been a contentious issue over the past few years.

• READ MORE: US expected to announce major fuel security deal at Pacific Islands Forum
• Pacific leaders urged to be united behind 2050 climate action vision
• US pushes critical minerals agenda in Cook Islands with Penrhyn ‘lifeline’
• Peters blasts Solomon Islands cabinet ministers for move against PM Wale
• Solomon Islands ‘dangles over the edge of political instability’ as three ministers quit
• Missing leaders won’t derail Pacific Islands Forum outcomes, says secretariat
• Vanuatu Special Envoy calls for PIF to ‘reopen’ issue of Pacific access to West Papua
• Solomon Islands PM Wale rushes home from Palau after confidence challenge launched
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

Each year, a partners dialogue meeting is held as part of the leaders’ meeting week. In total, 21 countries are PIF dialogue partners, with key regional players like the United States, China, Japan and France among them.

Taiwan, which also has a delegation in Koror, is a development partner.

However, last year, then-host Solomon Islands banned partners from attending and deferred the dialogue partner meeting to Palau. It was held on Tuesday in Koror.

As interest in the region has grown, the presence of partner delegations, as well as NGOs and observers has increased substantially. The current leaders’ meeting was expected to bring 2000 people to Palau.

Extensive meetings, sideline events
While interest and investment in the region are welcomed by members, the sheer number of people, countries and organisations now attending the leaders’ week has resulted in an extensive list of bilateral meetings and sideline events that sit outside the official PIFs agenda.

RNZ Pacific understands several delegations from Pacific nations have struggled to keep up with the demands of the week. It is understood that a separate partner process could offer more time for members to speak directly with one another and focus on the PIF agenda.

Despite that, support for the Solomon Islands proposal among the membership is unlikely to be clearcut. The Solomons’ decision to stop partners’ attending last year divided members.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters made it clear at the time he believed partners needed to be at the leaders’ meeting because of the investment role they played in the region — a sentiment he repeated this year.

While Sāmoa, represented by previous prime minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, and Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr supported the decision from then-Solomons Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele.

The Solomons proposal also comes as the 18 PIF members have been deliberating on a new partnership structure. The proposed structure would divide partners into two tiers, with the top tier having greater access to member states.

Geopolitical competition
With large delegations from China, the US and Taiwan present, geopolitical competition around the PIF has dominated headlines.

The absences of six leaders, including Solomons Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale, has also been reported extensively. Wale had to return home after landing in Koror due to a motion of no confidence in his leadership.

As a result, his Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela will be attending Thursday’s leaders’ retreat in his place. Only the heads-of-delegations from the 18 PIF members are permitted at the retreat, which is being held at the residence of President Whipps Jr.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/03/pacific-islands-forum-should-outside-nations-be-allowed-at-the-leaders-summit/

A surge in severe respiratory illness has been placing New Zealand’s hospitals under intense pressure over recent weeks. While influenza has been the main driver, rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have also contributed to the unusually high patient load.

Babies and young children carry a disproportionate share of RSV disease. In a typical year, around 1,800 to 2,000 children under five are hospitalised with RSV, about half of them infants. Māori and Pacific infants, along with children living in deprived or crowded households, are disproportionately affected.

With this year’s increased RSV activity has come renewed calls for wider access to medicines which target the virus and are already used elsewhere. Just this week, an online Horizon Research survey found 70% of respondents supported publicly funded RSV immunisation for eligible infants and during pregnancy.

This also comes at an important point for RSV prevention in New Zealand. On July 23, Medsafe approved the ready-made antibody injection nirsevimab, sold under the brand name Beyfortus. Pharmac has meanwhile placed it on its Options for Investment list.

New Zealand thus has an approved RSV preventive medicine without a publicly funded programme offering it to infants generally. That gap provides a practical test of the government’s efforts to improve access to medicines.

Faster regulatory approval can help, but approval alone does not set a price, secure supply, fund a medicine or establish a programme to deliver it.

A faster pathway, with exceptions

Several new RSV prevention options are now being used overseas. The vaccine Abrysvo is given during pregnancy, stimulating antibodies that pass through the placenta and help protect the baby during its first months of life.

Nirsevimab and clesrovimab, sold as Enflonsia, are long-acting antibodies given directly to infants. For most babies, maternal vaccination and an infant antibody are alternative ways of providing protection.

Australia has approved all three medicines. Abrysvo has been available free to eligible pregnant women under its National Immunisation Program since February 2025, while states and territories also fund nirsevimab for some infants and young children.

New Zealand’s publicly funded response remains much narrower.

Pharmac has funded the older antibody palivizumab since January 2025 for infants and young children at very high risk of severe RSV disease.

Nirsevimab has since received a high-priority recommendation from Pharmac’s advisers and progressed to its Options for Investment list. Infant clesrovimab and maternal Abrysvo have also received provisional high-priority recommendations.

But these steps do not guarantee funding, which ultimately remains Pharmac’s decision. Meanwhile, Medsafe’s new verification pathway came into force on July 3.

Medicines with full approval from at least two recognised overseas regulators can potentially receive a decision within 30 working days once an eligible application has been accepted.

This reliance model makes sense for a small country. Medsafe can draw on rigorous assessments already completed by trusted overseas regulators rather than repeating all their work.

Nirsevimab’s July approval, however, should not be attributed to the new pathway. Its Gazette notice records consent under section 20 of the Medicines Act rather than consent by verification.

The new pathway also has important limits. Medicines requiring an independent New Zealand assessment are deliberately excluded, including innovative medicines indicated exclusively for children or pregnant people.

This does not prevent such medicines from being approved. It means they must use another assessment pathway. On the published rules, applications limited to the infant uses of nirsevimab or clesrovimab would appear to fall within this exclusion.

Abrysvo is more complicated because overseas approvals also cover older adults, meaning eligibility would depend on the uses sought in New Zealand and the overseas approvals supporting them.

Moving from approval to access

Getting a medicine to patients in New Zealand involves several distinct decisions.

Medsafe assesses its quality, safety and efficacy and decides whether it may be marketed. Pharmac decides whether and how it will be publicly funded, while health services must then procure, distribute and administer it. It may also need to negotiate price and supply arrangements.

Health New Zealand and healthcare providers must then establish and deliver the programme, including its eligibility rules, workforce, logistics, communications and administration.

Some of these processes can overlap. Pharmac can undertake parallel assessment while Medsafe considers regulatory approval.

But faster Medsafe assessment cannot compel a supplier to submit a New Zealand application, agree on an acceptable price, guarantee sufficient supply or establish a delivery programme.

So, will the new verification pathway actually get medicines to New Zealanders sooner? It is still too early to tell.

When the pathway opened, the Ministry of Health said several pharmaceutical companies had signalled interest and Medsafe had begun discussing potential applications with them.

But as of August 28, Medsafe had not published pathway-specific figures showing how many applications had been submitted, validated, accepted, redirected to another pathway or decided.

Greater transparency would make the reform easier to evaluate. Publishing application numbers and decision times alongside Pharmac’s funding timelines would show more clearly how long medicines take to reach patients.

Nirsevimab makes the distinction between approval and access particularly clear. It has regulatory approval and has progressed through Pharmac’s assessment process, but broad publicly funded access has yet to follow.

New Zealand’s verification pathway should shorten regulatory assessment for medicines that qualify.

The true test will be how much sooner the whole system delivers protection to patients, particularly the Māori and Pacific infants who carry a disproportionate share of the RSV burden.

Dylan A Mordaunt 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/nzs-new-medicines-fast-track-promises-quicker-approvals-but-what-about-access/

By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/melanesian-countries-to-review-indonesias-status-at-msg-if-no-action-on-west-papua-visit/

For Andy Burnham, walking into the bear pit that is Prime Minister’s Questions, it must have been hard to stay calm. His audience was a room of closely packed MPs, some hostile, some friendly – all very loud – many wanting to make a mark.

And the full audience for PMQs extends far beyond the MPs in the chamber. Prime ministers are thinking about the media, external groups, foreign governments, voters and financial markets. The reactions of any of these matter. The PM has the dual worry of dealing with opposition questions while also demonstrating his or her worth to the party members sitting behind them. Backbenchers can signal a lack of confidence through quietness or just not turning up.

It is no wonder that preparing for PMQs is, in itself, demanding. Alastair Campbell, who advised Tony Blair when he was opposition leader and in the early days of the New Labour government, is clear about just what it took. Preparation can take hours. Nerves don’t disappear. And it doesn’t appear to have got any easier in recent years.

Burnham is, of course, new to this. And unlike many in his position, he hasn’t had a chance to rehearse as opposition leader. He was wise to spend part of Tuesday’s return to parliament on a statement and a lengthy question-and-answer session. It gave him a warm-up for the main event.

After Keir Starmer was ousted as prime minister, Labour MPs will be willing Burnham to show that he can succeed. So how did he do in his first PMQs, and what can we glean from it?

Restraint?

This was not a “full-blooded” PMQs. Burham chose not to mount attacks where others might have. A question from Reform UK’s Danny Kruger, for example, could have led to a reply focusing on the party’s reported problems. That it did not, may mean Burnham wants to move away from such attacks – or that he considers Reform less significant than it has been in recent years.

Burnham’s jibes at the Conservatives were not fierce either. He merely criticised past statements made by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and her shadow cabinet and sought to associate them with the economic failings of past governments. Prime Minister’s Questions is an adversarial event and it will be worth watching whether more obvious hostilities develop in future.

Sharper exchanges in turn end up generating sharper questions, so PMQs could move from point-scoring debate to abusive exchange. But Burnham may have some way to go to match David Cameron, who was identified by researchers as the rudest prime minister at PMQs.

At length

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle warned that Burnham’s long answers may cause the session to overrun. Burnham clearly wanted to spend time on each answer, but this can be a blessing and a curse for a PM. Longer answers mean you can say everything you want. But sometimes the short, sharp reply is most effective at putting your opponent off their stride. The prime minister may have to learn brevity.

Moving on

One of the tricks of dealing with difficult subjects is the “bridge”. That is, taking the topic and linking to something else that you actually do want to talk about. Burnham showed some ability here, linking at one point from a question about public spending to the needs of young people not in education, employment or training (Neets).

His bridge from the Bayeux Tapestry and French president Emmanuel Macron to small boat crossings didn’t work, however. He is clearly a bit rusty in the use of this technique.

Are you listening?

Badenoch was keen to paint the PM as someone who won’t answer questions about spending, and as such as a PM who leans towards more tax and more spend. This may be the beginning of a strategy to frame him as vague and unwilling to commit to specific action in the face of obvious problems. Once an idea like this takes root, it is very hard to shift.

But neither Badenoch nor Burnham has the proper measure of the other yet, and it will take a few more outings before there is a sense of how successful this strategy may prove.

The right man for the job?

As Burnham did not ascend to Downing Street immediately after a run of other roles in parliament, or after a general election, he needed to make his experience clear. He name-checked things he had achieved or initiated, specifically in Greater Manchester, as a way of underlining his credentials.

These references, plus the use of “I”, were designed to demonstrate his ability to get things done, rather like the way it is used in job interviews. Using “I” instead of “my government” or “we” also demonstrates engagement with the topic.

Play nicely

During some replies, Burnham touched on cross-party working, and made an on-the-spot pledge to meet Cornish MPs (not all of whom are Labour) for talks. Offering cross-party working can remove the sting from an attack and make the prime minister seem reasonable. This appears to be a feature of Burnham’s approach and it will be interesting to see if it develops into genuine cooperation with at least some other parties.

Prime ministers often say they want to change aspects of PMQs. Burnham himself has indicated that he wants a different, less Punch-and-Judy tone. Back in 1997, Tony Blair made the move from two shorter sessions a week to one longer one. Blair said he wanted a more considered approach, with more questions and more answers. Whether prime ministers get what they want, of course, is not entirely down to them. They may get the last word, but they don’t control the cast.

Paula Keaveney is affiliated with the Liberal Democrats

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/andy-burnhams-first-pmqs-heres-what-we-learned-from-this-bloodless-affair/

Personality is something we all share, but the different ways we think and feel also make us unique.

Personality is relatively stable and influences nearly every aspect of human life, from academic performance and career choices to health behaviours and longevity. For example, someone who is responsible might avoid taking risks or alcohol and drug use.

Our new study, published in Nature, has linked personality with more than 1,200 common genetic variants, highlighting its central role in understanding human experience.

This was only possible because 1.14 million people contributed their DNA and time to 46 research studies in 13 countries that measured personality in the same way.

How did we measure personality?

Scientists summarise thousands of personality traits with five relatively independent factors called the Big Five:

• extraversion – being sociable, assertive, and energetic

• agreeableness – being compassionate, cooperative, and respectful

• conscientiousness – being responsible, productive, and organised

• neuroticism – being emotionally reactive, anxious, and depressive

• openness to experience – being curious, imaginative, and preferencing variety.

You might be familiar with the Myers-Briggs or Enneagram personality type systems, which are different ways to describe personality. Scientists prefer the Big Five because they describe personality on a continuous spectrum rather than sorting people into discrete types.

How scientists study the genetics of personality

Genetics were first linked to personality through studies of twins, which show that closely related people tend to be more similar in their personalities.

Today, researchers use a method called a genome-wide association study, or GWAS, to find differences in genetic markers by comparing the DNA of many people at once. In this study, researchers from 15 countries around the world, including our team at QIMR Berghofer, conducted up to five GWASs on their own study data. We were searching for common genetic variants linked to each personality trait.

We then merged these individual GWAS results into a combined analysis, led by the Revived Genomics of Personality Consortium from Michigan State University. This substantially boosted our ability to find genetic markers related to personality.

Follow-up tests looked at which genes those markers are associated with. We also wanted to know where in the body these genes are active, and how the genetics of personality compares to other behavioural traits.

What did we find?

We found 1,260 genetic markers associated with the Big Five, including 824 not found in previous studies.

Between 5 and 16% of variation in personality can be explained by common genetic variants. A similar result has been found for major depression.

This suggests genetics plays a robust role in creating personality. At the same time, a large proportion is also affected by our environment.

However, this isn’t due to a shared family environment. You don’t have a similar personality to your family members because you grew up together. We tested this by comparing GWAS results from unrelated people and family members.

If shared family environment were biasing the results, we would expect to see differences between the GWAS results from unrelated people, and family members. This bias is seen in studies of educational attainment and cognitive performance.

We didn’t find evidence of this for the Big Five. Personality seems to be distinct from these other behavioural outcomes.

The genetic markers associated with each Big Five trait, except agreeableness, were strongly linked to genes expressed in the prefrontal cortex of the brain.

This area, located right behind your forehead, is often called the brain’s “personality centre”. It is important for emotional regulation, decision-making and self-control.

The prefrontal cortex is also implicated in many psychiatric disorders including anxiety, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and bipolar disorder. The Big Five and psychiatric disorders show substantial genetic sharing, which may explain why they are consistently linked to the same brain region.

Overlapping genetic signals between personality and health traits show how personality can also directly affect our physical health. For example, extraversion increased COVID infection risk. Conscientiousness decreased body-mass index (BMI), reduced the likelihood of smoking and reduced the frequency of spells in hospital.

The genetics of personality also plays a major role in how people complete surveys for research studies. For example, those scoring high for agreeableness and openness to experience are more likely to complete optional questionnaires. Therefore, the genetics of personality may influence published research results based on survey data in ways that are unaccounted for.

What’s next?

These results give us more insight into the genetics of personality than has been possible in the past. However, there are still a number of gaps to explore in the future.

The genetics of the Big Five were highly consistent across geography, age group, and personality measure for these studies. But the Big Five aren’t necessarily the best summary of personality differences across all cultures and languages. This means our results may not apply to everyone in the world.

Personality is a fundamental aspect of being human. These research findings have overhauled our understanding of genetic effects on personality, and how personality relates to many aspects of our lives.

In time, personality traits can be integrated into models for both physical and mental health outcomes. This will open new opportunities to improve how we categorise, identify, and treat disease.

Michelle K Lupton received funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Boosting Dementia Research Initiative Team Grant, and an NHMRC Boosting Dementia Leadership Fellowship.

Briar Wormington 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/huge-genetic-study-finds-strong-links-between-dna-and-personality-traits/

For the first time in decades, union members at Arts Centre Melbourne (ACM) are taking protected industrial action.

Over the last month, workers have taken their campaign to audiences, leafleting patrons and opening a Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) performance with an announcement about pay and conditions. Last week, union members stopped work for 30 minutes ahead of an MSO performance.

The action follows stalled wage negotiations between ACM management and members of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Community and Public Sector Union Victoria, and Electrical Trades Union.

More than 95% of union members voted in favour of protected industrial action.

According to the unions, ACM staff wages have fallen 10% behind inflation since 2022, while almost 40% of the workforce is paid at the minimum award rate. In line with the Victorian government’s wage cap, management has offered a 3% pay increase, but under current cost-of-living pressures, members argue this amounts to a cut in real wages.

The dispute is unfolding amid broader funding crises across Australia’s arts and cultural sectors. In Victoria alone, state funding has reduced by over $20 million since 2022.

For the unions, these issues are interrelated. In a joint petition, members are calling on Victorian Minister for Creative Industries Vicki Ward to “increase funding to Arts Centre Melbourne and give workers a real pay increase that reverses years of real wage decline.”

These are serious concerns, for the livelihoods of ACM workers and for sustaining Melbourne’s cultural life.

Yet these joint demands highlight a tension between industrial and cultural policy.

Where in most other industries bargaining occurs between workers and employers, in subsidised cultural institutions wage negotiations are often inseparable from questions of government support.

Before arts funding

Cultural and industrial policy were not always so closely intertwined.

In 1944, Actors Equity of Australia led a strike against commercial theatre giant J. C. Williamson’s over their use of non-union labour.

Over three weeks, union members stopped work across several productions, distributed pamphlets, and picketed performances at five venues across Sydney and Melbourne.

As the dispute escalated, the Melbourne Tramways and Omnibus Employees Association “black-banned” transport to non-union performances, while the NSW Trades and Labour Council issued a statewide boycott notice against Theatre Royal.

The strike ended when federal Labor minister Jack Holloway intervened through the arbitration system. Williamson’s performers would be required to join the union.

The dispute was resolved through the institutions of industrial relations. The government acted as an arbiter, not a funding gatekeeper.

A shift in the policy landscape

The expansion of cultural subsidy in the 1970s reshaped the industrial terrain. Whitlam’s funding boom enabled an explosion of new arts organisations. But the grant system increasingly tied wages and conditions to government support.

The consequences became apparent in 1981, when substantial cuts to federal arts funding under the Fraser government resulted in the defunding of eight theatre companies. In response, unions and arts advocacy organisations coordinated a national rally called Stage Crisis Day.

Unlike the Williamson’s strike, activists were mobilising against government decisions rather than a single employer. Supported by high profile figures including actors Mel Gibson and John Bell and playwright David Williamson, the campaign ultimately secured the restoration of around 80% of cut funding.

This feat proved political mobilisation could win back cut funds. But in doing so, it further shifted the focus of industrial action away from bargaining and towards funding.

The politics of subsidy

When workers in the Williamson’s dispute withdrew their labour, government intervention was contained to the industrial relations system. In the cultural policy arena, ministers hold extraordinary power over the sector’s resources.

In 2014, artists and arts workers withdrew from the Biennale of Sydney in protest against its founding partner Transfield’s operation of offshore detention centres.

Arts Minister George Brandis labelled the boycott “shameful” and said future funding agreements should demand recipients don’t “unreasonably refuse private sector funding”.

The next year, he diverted $100 million from the Australia Council, to create an arts fund which would not be held at arms-length from government, but would be distributed under his own discretion.

In a dramatic fallout, the Brandis “raids” left more than 60 arts organisations without funding, and cost thousands of cultural sector jobs.

Where historic disputes were resolved in a matter of weeks, it took two years of arts organisations, workers, advocacy groups and unions fighting against the changes before much of the funding was restored (though not all).

These events showed not only the significant shift in the site of industrial relations, but how much the sector’s time, resources, and collective action were now devoted to preserving the funding system.

Lessons of history

These disputes trace the increasingly central role of government funding in shaping working conditions in the arts sector.

In 1944, workers pursued their claims through industrial relations.

By 1981, they were more frequently organising around funding.

By 2015, the Brandis raids revealed how profoundly those two spheres have become entwined, and the political risks when arts workers’ conditions are set at the discretion of the arts minister.

At historic lows in union membership, ACM workers face considerable challenges in mobilising at the scale of historic strikes. As the dispute continues, the question is not whether collective action works, but how it adapts in a sector increasingly shaped by cultural policy.

Izabella Nantsou received funding from the Australian Historical Association’s Allan Martin Award.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/art-centre-melbourne-workers-face-a-battle-between-industrial-and-cultural-policy/

Businesses and local councils around Australia are increasingly bringing in their own restrictions on “smart glasses”, responding to customers’ concerns about being covertly recorded in public places.

An Adelaide cafe recently banned smart glasses, citing safety concerns for vulnerable customers. Last week, Brisbane City Council banned the non-consensual use of all camera-enabled devices, including wearable technology, phones and cameras, from 21 public swimming pools.

But businesses need to be careful about how they clamp down on smart glasses on their premises, because being too strict could break the law.

Business rules come with limits

If a private business has their terms of entry at their door, when you enter you are bound by those terms. Similarly, if you sign up to membership with them – such as joining a gym – that contract governs you.

Australian businesses can impose whatever terms they like upon consumers, provided those terms are lawful.

For example, a pub can refuse you entry if their rules prohibit torn or soiled clothing, and you are wearing ripped or dirty jeans. A library can eject you if you are being disorderly and disturbing the quiet for other patrons.

But business terms that break the law are not enforceable.

Why outright bans are legally risky

An outright ban on patrons using smart glasses, whether recording or not, threatens to violate anti-discrimination laws.

Smart glasses – including the best-known Ray Ban Meta glasses – can be fitted with prescription lenses. Alternatively, someone might simply require smart glasses to support their vision. In both cases, a blanket ban might constitute unlawful discrimination under Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

Smart glasses can also support people with mobility issues. Ray Ban Meta glasses offer “Be My Eyes” functionality, enabling hands-free calls and live captioning for phone calls.

Other emerging models of smart glasses can apply augmented reality technology to float captions into the wearer’s line of sight, aiding people with hearing issues.

Some can even capture conversations and produce transcripts. This could help people with visual, hearing or cognitive impairments.

Businesses that discriminate against someone with a disability can face penalties such as fines or compensation orders, or the risk of having to redress any loss or damage caused.

Following state and territory rules

The Brisbane City Council’s approach – updating its terms of entry to public pools to restrict smart device recordings without people’s consent – is a safer model to follow.

Prohibiting non-consensual recordings not only protects other customers, but is consistent with surveillance device laws in New South Wales,Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory.

These laws are fairly similar. They prohibit intentional use of “listening” or “optical surveillance” devices to listen to or record others’ private conversations, or to record your own private conversation with another person without consent.

Queensland prohibits unauthorised use of listening devices under its privacy laws.

Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory are outliers. Their listening device laws don’t currently apply to optical surveillance devices.

Read more:
Smart glasses are going mainstream. Do current privacy laws protect us from the risks?

What if you’re the customer?

If your gym, sporting club, or another organisation you belong to suddenly restricts or bans smart glasses, what can you do?

If a business imposes lawful terms and you sign your name to them, they legally bind you, even if you have not read or understood them.

If the terms say the business can change its rules, and one of those rules now covers smart glasses, you’ll be required to conform. Be sure to check if there’s a notice requirement (that is, if you needed to be told in advance).

For businesses without memberships, such as a cafe or bar, any such terms must be visible at the point of entry. By entering, you’ve agreed to the displayed terms.

Any term permitting a business to temporarily confiscate smart glasses could potentially be legally challenged.

If a business cancels your membership for possession or use of smart glasses, check its terms of entry permit this. If they don’t – or you have a valid reason to use smart glasses – the business could be challenged under contract, discrimination and consumer laws.

Clear terms of entry are needed

This week, the federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the government is not currently considering a ban on importing smart glasses.

With cheaper options such as Kmart’s $89 glasses now available, it’s likely we’ll see more smart glasses, with even more functions, appearing in cafes and shops.

Restricting unauthorised or non-consensual recordings is a safer alternative to an outright ban. It’s consistent with surveillance device legislation and sets a friendlier tone for patrons.

This will still be difficult to police, as it can be hard to tell when a patron is recording with smart glasses. (Though Meta just announced an upcoming update will stop its glasses working if the recording light is covered.)

Clearer business terms of entry can help protect Australians’ privacy and safety in public spaces, without affecting people with legitimate reasons to wear smart glasses.

Read more:
Australia is eyeing a world-first ‘fair and reasonable’ test for data collection and privacy

Dr Mark Giancaspro is a senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide Law School and also special counsel with DW Fox Tucker Lawyers in Adelaide, South Australia. The views expressed in this article are his own, based on his research expertise in contract law, competition and consumer law.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/can-australian-businesses-legally-ban-customers-from-using-smart-glasses/

From the 1970s to the 1990s, an estimated 3,500–8,500 Australians acquired HIV or hepatitis C through infected blood or blood products. The exact number isn’t known and it may be substantially higher. Many people likely died without knowing they had been infected.

Some people who acquired HIV through blood or blood products received financial settlements. However many, particularly those who acquired hepatitis C virus through blood products, have not.

Those affected have therefore welcomed the newly announced Senate inquiry into the circumstances that led to infected blood entering the blood supply.

They, their partners, children, parents and carers will be able to give evidence. Compensation will also be discussed.

Here’s what happened to Australia’s blood supply decades ago.

Before HIV and hepatitis C had names

Today, Australia’s blood supply is nationally regulated. Donors who are at higher risk of having infections that can be passed on to others during a transfusion are delayed from donating blood until it is deemed safe. All donations are tested for blood-borne infections. And blood products are treated before use to safeguard against any remaining, or as yet unidentified, disease-causing microorganisms.

But this was not always the case.

In the early 1980s, neither HIV nor the hepatitis C virus had been identified, even though they were circulating.

Both infections have long asymptomatic periods. This meant people would not know they had an infection until they developed symptoms years later.

Many people with these infections unknowingly donated blood. These donations were used for whole-blood transfusions. They were also used to make blood products, such as factor VIII, to treat the blood clotting disorder haemophilia.

First, testing for HIV

HIV was first isolated in 1983 and shown to be the cause of AIDS. This was the name given to a group of illnesses related to suppression of the immune system that appeared a few years earlier in gay men, injecting drug users, and subsequently in people who received blood or blood products in the United States, Europe and Australia. It was a feared and stigmatised disease, with high mortality.

From 1984 potential donors in Australia were required to sign a statement to say they were not part of a population at increased risk of HIV.

By 1985, an accurate HIV test was developed and was used in Australia to test all blood donations.

An estimated 520 people acquired HIV through the blood supply in Australia.

Then, testing for hepatitis C

The illness first described in the 1970s as “non-A non-B hepatitis” turned up in people who received blood donations.

What would later be called hepatitis C was initially not considered a particularly serious disease.

This is likely because it takes a long time (20 years or more) after being infected to cause illness. And only a fraction of infected people develop serious liver disease. In comparison, untreated HIV causes serious illness in virtually all who acquire it.

The hepatitis C virus was identified in 1989. A screening test was developed and deployed in Australian blood services from 1990.

By this time, the risk of acquiring HIV from blood donations had been virtually eliminated. So the vast majority of Australians infected by receiving infected blood or blood products acquired hepatitis C virus, not HIV.

Could Australia have done more?

A key debate is whether Australian blood services could have done more to minimise the impact of hepatitis C virus before the specific test was developed.

Tests for “surrogate markers” could have been used. These are tests that pick up an indicator of an infection in donated blood. But these tests had serious limits.

One candidate measures liver function by testing for the key enzyme known as ALT or alanine aminotransferase.

However, elevated levels are also associated with factors such as alcohol use and taking common drugs, such as paracetamol and statins. So this test may have led to many people being excluded from giving blood unnecessarily.

Surrogate marker tests also miss a lot of infections. So, at best, they could reduce but not remove the risk, and may have led to a reduced blood supply.

Implementation of ALT-based testing was initially rejected in both the US and Canada.

Then another surrogate marker, anti-HBc, a marker of prior exposure to hepatitis B, was proposed in 1984.

Within two years, the US had recommended all blood donations and plasma products be screened for both ALT and anti-HBc.

The Canadian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service did not. The then state-based Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services in Australia also did not recommend the surrogate screening in 1987, apart from the Queensland branch.

State-based services managed risk differently

A key issue that led to the newly announced Senate inquiry is the question of fairness. There were various financial settlements for people who acquired hepatitis C through blood or blood products.

Before the national unification of the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services in the mid-90s, each state and territory had its own policy about managing risk. This is why Queensland was able to introduce surrogate marker tests that other states did not. There is no way of knowing whether this had any impact on hepatitis C virus infection rates in this period.

Financial settlements were made for people who had acquired hepatitis C virus through a blood transfusion between 1986 and 1990, as long as the transfusion could be traced to a specific facility and donor.

However, people who acquired the virus via a blood product such as factor VIII, a product derived from thousands of donations, were not eligible for financial settlements as it was not possible to trace the source of infection.

Good manufacturing practice?

New evidence aired on the ABC’s Australian Story has suggested poor manufacturing practices may have also contributed to infections. During the 1980s, Australian blood clotting products were made at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) in Victoria.

The ABC has published federal cabinet minutes from 1985 that allege practices at CSL did not meet good manufacturing standards and that batches of blood products “failed to reach the appropriate sterility standards”.

This charge was repeated in cabinet minutes in 1988. Failure to adhere to regulatory standards would provide further evidence to support claims that the lack of compensation for blood product recipients has been unfair.

Why a new inquiry matters

In 2004, a previous Senate inquiry into contaminated blood found that improving access to health services, education of health professionals and supporting research to develop better hepatitis C treatments was preferable to further financial settlements for those with hepatitis C acquired through blood or blood products.

In contrast, Canada and the United Kingdom have started broad-brush compensation schemes after their national enquiries.

Australia’s 2004 Senate inquiry also recommended a formal national apology to those affected, but to date, there has not been one.

This new Senate inquiry may help to address a lingering sense of injustice.

Bridget Haire has received funding from the NHMRC. She is a named investigator on a Partnership Grant with Lifeblood. She is also a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, now known as Health Equity Matters.

John Kaldor receives funding from the NHMRC as lead investigator on a Partnership Project in collaboration with Australian Red Cross Lifeblood and has a more than 30 year history of working on research and policy with Lifeblood and its precursor organisations.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/thousands-of-australians-received-infected-blood-over-decades-now-theyll-have-their-say/

Many Australian homes were not built to cope with a rapidly changing climate.

Compared to new homes, established houses tend to consume – and waste – significant amounts of energy.

That’s where home energy upgrade programs come in. These programs help households boost the energy efficiency of their houses while cutting power costs, emissions and grid demand. They are mainly run by state and federal governments, but community-led programs are multiplying across Australia.

However, our recent research shows not all Australians can currently benefit from these programs. Let’s unpack why.

Top down or bottom up

In Australia, home energy upgrade programs are largely developed and delivered by state, territory and federal governments. These programs assume that if households are given the right information and a financial incentive, they will decide to upgrade. This approach allows them to reach large numbers of people, with Victoria’s scheme alone delivering more than 180,000 upgrades to households in 2025.

However, government-run programs tend to benefit households that can pay the residual cost of upgrades, are motivated to change and have the skills to navigate any practical or legal hurdles. This is because energy upgrades can be costly and complex to install.

Community-led programs are gaining traction in Australia. These programs – run by either communities or local government – are often much more attuned to what residents want and worry about. They are built on trust and relationships, and provide practical advice and hands-on support. These are often what so-called “hard-to-reach” households – such as renters, low-income Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds – need most. Without such supports, these households tend to miss out.

One organiser told us:

“Developing a trustworthy relationship with the household is just key. Otherwise, you get very low uptake of these programs.”

Read more:
No home left behind: a postcode approach to electrification

All about connection

Upgrading a house can involve making lots of complex decisions. Many local home energy upgrade programs are resource-poor and may have to rely on state or federal schemes, which are often difficult to navigate and apply for. This is particularly true for people whose first language is not English or who lack computer skills.

Research consistently shows trusted relationships make upgrading much smoother. They are also key to ensuring locally-led home energy upgrade programs actually work.

To cultivate such relationships, program managers must create opportunities for householders to interact with each other. This could be community forums, appliance demonstration events or open home days where people explain how they upgraded their home and what the results were.

We interviewed 19 people who design and deliver these programs, working in state government, local government, community groups, peak bodies and consultancies. Most were based in Victoria, with participants also in New South Wales and Queensland, and several working nationally.

A common theme was the value of “social work” in the delivery of home energy upgrade programs. Examples of social work include helping people identify which incentives they are eligible for or guiding them through the application process. Householders may also need help picking the right upgrade products for their home and finding tradies who can safely and effectively install them.

One organiser acknowledged:

“I really had to hold people’s hand through a lot of it, which is fine if you’re expecting that.”

Another organiser shared:

“The solar installer that we had, they obviously don’t work with a lot of low-income people because they can’t afford the solar. They weren’t used to working with that type of audience with all of these extra layers of needs.”

Read more:
Complicated, costly and downright frustrating: Aussies keen to cut emissions with clean energy at home get little support

Scaling up

One issue is many locally-led home energy upgrade programs don’t have the funding or resources to last. But we can change that by:

• recognising councils and community organisations as delivery partners in their own right, with a clear role in designing programs and funding that covers dedicated staff

• offering more predictable, sustainable funding to give program managers the time to establish relationships with householders and build on long-term projects

• rethinking how we measure success, by evaluating whether programs build trusted relationships and not just the number of upgrades installed or rebates claimed

• creating ways to share knowledge between local programs by supporting initiatives that connect councils and community groups.

Locally-led home energy upgrade programs are popping up across the country. Our research team is building a platform to give organisers the tools and guidance they need. But to ensure these programs reach all Australian homes, we must recognise and fund them as a critical part of our nation’s clean energy transition.

Read more:
‘Balcony solar’ and plug-in systems could help cut your energy costs. But only if rules change

Christoph Brodnik receives funding for this research as part of the Energy Upgrades for Australian Homes project, which is led by Monash University and funded through the RACE for 2030 Cooperative Research Centre.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/trust-is-key-why-home-energy-upgrades-need-more-than-rebates/

COMMENTARY: By Martyn Bradbury, editor and publisher of The Daily Blog

This New Zealand general election on November 7 has an enormous amount at stake.

If this hard-right coalition government gets re-elected to cement into place 19th Century Settler White Privilege using an anti-Māori, anti-Treaty, anti-beneficiary, anti-worker, anti-renter and anti-environment agenda for their donors interests, NZ society will be irreparably damaged.

So who do you watch for Fourth Estate Journalism for your election coverage matters this year?

If you give a damn about NZ politics, here are The Daily Blog’s picks of best NZ media and journalists to follow as we face the most consequential election of our generation:

1: Barbara Dreaver – TVNZ

There’s a bloody good reason she was awarded the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to investigative journalism and Pacific communities in 2024.

Bab’s is a national cultural treasure.

Her body of work every single year marks her journalism and her ability to pull NZ’s attention towards the current affairs of the Pacific as the benchmark for Fourth Estate values in this country.

The range of issues Barbara Dreaver covers from natural disasters to geopolitical machinations to domestic internal dynamics, her spectrum and skill as a journalist is true dedication to the craft.

She is such a humble person and her stories are always focused on the ignored voices.

We need her quality of journalism more than ever before.

Standing ovation for the Queen!

Her journalism is the benchmark for Fourth Estate accountability.

2: A View From Afar Podcast – Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan

Honestly the best critique of foreign policy in New Zealand. You can watch the podcast here live when it goes out or find them on Evening Report. You learn more in 30 minutes with them than you will ever glean from the mainstream media.

Why the hell NZ on Air is not sponsoring this astounds me, they do more explanation of what’s actually going on than any other NZ media network.

3: Werewolf Blog – Gordon Campbell 

Gordon remains the best political Blogger in New Zealand. His Werewolf blog is a weekly must read and he does more independent researched journalism than anyone else in the game. If you are not reading Gordon Campbell each week, you shouldn’t be commenting on politics.

4: Bryan Bruce Investigate Substack

Bryan Bruce is an investigative reporter who works tirelessly for a civil debate on the issues of inequality and poverty. His documentaries remain some of the most important popular critiques of neoliberalism and capitalism in NZ.

5: Ben Morgan Substack 

Our very own military strategist Ben Morgan has his own Substack account. He has been blogging for TDB for over 2 years, updating strategic movements in the Pacific and the Ukraine/Russia conflict. He is readable and gives a far better regular insight to what is happening than any other mainstream media commentator.

6: Nick’s Kōrero – Nick Rockel Substack 

Nick offers a wicked and sharp critique of the Political right. His skill and fluidity of writing marks him as an artisan blogger who is an important artist and underrated blogger who deserves far greater recognition.

7: Waatea Digital 

During an emergency, the Marae always becomes one of the central points of the community response; the same is happening in media. As the media emergency occurs, it is the Māori media that step up and become the central point of journalism.

Waatea Radio has recently expanded into digital journalism and the new power of that journalism is providing a real alternative to the dying mainstream media monoliths. Waatea is the ONLY media company that is growing!

8: Against the Current blog 

Our comrades over at the Against the Current blog offer weekly insights and criticism into the weeks events from a staunch socialist perspective. It is always well researched and well reasoned.

9: No Right Turn Blog – Idiot Savant

Idiot Savant is one of the OGs of NZ blogging. They are a must read weekly blogger with some of the best criticisms of government policy with a deep focus on policy and the counter productive outcomes of that policy. Fearless with the strongest values in NZ Blogging, the NZ Blogosphere would be a lesser place without No Right Turn.

10: RNZ Politics 

You cannot deny that the RNZ Politics team have been producing some of the best journalism this year. They have become the benchmark and the record of choice for NZ journalism. Sure there are constant screw ups (Mick Hall should never have been sacked), but that’s management issues from people who are never held accountable, but the journalism they have been producing this year has been mana enhancing for the profession.

11: Guyon 30 Podcast 

I’m not a personal fan of Espiner, but you can’t question the journalism he provides. His relatively new Podcast does hold the powerful to account and it’s probably the sharpest political interview in NZ. You can’t ignore his intelligence or how well researched he is.

12: Chris Lynch Christchurch’s Newsroom – blog

No one is going to pretend Chris Lynch is left-wing, but this isn’t a list of left-wing media to follow, this is a list of good journalism regardless of political persuasion. Lynch has a deep entry to Christchurch and is the first person to turn to when an issue hits NZ’s second largest city.

13: Te Ao with Moana – Māori TV

It’s simply the best current affairs show on NZ Television. Week after week they produce the most insightful and interesting content and I honestly believe that if this show was prime time TVNZ, our country would actually be a smarter place to love.  This amazing piece on Willie’s Oxford Speech is the best thing you will see on TV this year…

14: The Bradbury Group podcast

Our first episode was name checked in Parliament! Who else has the Speaker of the House and a Knight of the Realm appearing as guests?

15: The Kaka with Bernard Hickey Substack

He is simply the best economist in NZ. If there are only 3 NZ news organisations you can fund, he is one of them. He brings new facts and critiques to government policy that is actually the best in the game. You have to follow him daily or you have no place thinking you know anything. If there is a debate on economics and Bernard Hickey isn’t here, it isn’t worth engaging with.

16: Newsroom 

Newsroom, without a doubt, now generates the best daily journalism in NZ. Their critique of the economy and politics is probably the best in the country. It is super intelligent and presents coherent well thought out and reasoned counter points to government babble. If there is a news source worth supporting, it is Newsroom.

17: The Knightly Views – Gavin Ellis blog 

Gavin is an old school editor and his arguments are always focused on a better public broadcasting model. His observations on where the media landscape is going are some of the best in NZ. He is a weekly must read to understand what is happening in the media eco-system.

18: Mountain Tui Substack 

Finally a reason to read The Standard. The Left have lacked any true muscular champions and Mountain Tui is finally that voice. Excellent political criticism and insight all from behind an anonymous veil that allows for honesty. Widely rumoured to be Shane Te Pou.

19: SpiderHoof Twitter 

Part of a new class of left-wing commentator who has sprung up on the social media platforms, Spider Hoof is funny, clever and always worth checking out on Twitter.

20: Mata with Mihingarangi Forbes podcast 

One of the best political podcasts in the country, Mihi is one of our political journalist treasures and her team bring the best criticisms. They were the first media outlet to really expose the Atlas Network and its influence on our political system, no one else had the courage to do that.

21: Gerard Otto Facebook 

Parts of the new wave of commentators who use social media platforms to communicate with, he is another incredibly sharp critic of the government and well worth reading.

22: Scott Hamilton Twitter

Very talented historian who has the ability to connect the past with what is happening in the present. One of the few people you genuinely learn something new everytime you read them. Incredible knowledge of NZ’s hidden history.

23: Clint Smith Twitter 

Clint is one of the best political twitter accounts you can follow. Up to the minute critiques on government policy, he is one of the few whose hot takes are 99 percent right. He is an excellent starting position for anyone wanting to keep up with the news cycle.

24: Verity Johnson – Stuff columnist

She articulates liberal Auckland better than anyone else in the game. Her insights into the largest city are always politically relevant!

25: Simon Wilson – Listener columnist

Ever since Mayor Wayne Brown tried to shut down having to do any interviews with Simon, he has become a must read to understand what is happening in Auckland City. He is a talented writer with a real ability to move the dial on Auckland politics. He’s the reason you get a Listener subscription.

26: John Campbell – RNZ

The public broadcaster is free of the commercial and political constraints other broadcasters face, the public broadcaster can speak truth to power and has the obligation to do so!

John Campbell is not writing opinion pieces, he’s writing analysis and thinking deeper than the current shallow mainstream media allows for.

Attacking his journalism and his analysis under the guise of balance is a false narrative designed to strangle his voice off.

If people of insight and oversight can see the looming social carnage this hard-right racist climate-denying government is manufacturing, they have an obligation to speak out.

John speaks out.

27: Andrea Vance – Stuff senior journalist

She’s just so good and a weekly must read. Probably the best political journalist in front at the moment, her critique of ACT this year has been next level.

28: BHN – Youtube

The BHN boys, Pat and Chewie, have created a whole new late night online news audience and are the masters of this new medium. Always interesting, always challenging, they are the future of media in this country.

29: Café Pacific – David Robie

Dr David Robie is one the great Pacific journalists and provides a news source focused on the Pacific and what is happening in our geopolitical neighbourhood. We are fortunate to have him guest blog on TDB regularly and he also publishes Asia Pacific Report.

30: Mick Hall – Consortium journalist

Forced out by RNZ for telling the truth, Mick Hall was pushed into the spotlight after he correctly inserted context to international wire stories. He should never have been forced out, and now writes at the very excellent Consortium News.

Sean Ackland, Brie Elliot, Dr Harpreet Singh, Samual Hudson

All left-wing commentators you should be following this election.

Media to Avoid:

Not all media are created equally. There is some media you just want to avoid.

1: ZB 
If you want to be a rich prick with rich prick attitudes that make you a dickhead, ZB is for you. The ZB Troll Farm are always malicious and frustrated, like a parking warden who hasn’t had an orgasm for a month.

These are literally people you would not piss on if they were on fire. With Alt-Right Culture War Billionaire Jim Grenon taking over NZME, it’s only a matter of time before Cameron Slater gets appointed editor of the Herald.

2: The Platform vs Reality Check Radio Schism
On one side you have a cross burning, redneck banjo twanging witch hunter who believes in science and on the other side you have a cross burning, redneck banjo twanging witch hunter who doesn’t believe in science. The great schism of contrarian media between The Platform and Reality Check Radio is more akin to twins trying to eat each other in the womb. It’s like watching a death cage match between Voldemort and Trump in that you aren’t sure who to cheer for, you just want them to both kill each other.

3: Seven Sharp 
There is a reason this nation is as thick as pig shit, and it’s 7 Sharp. The manner in which TVNZ have bastardised the 7pm current affairs slot into a lightweight infotainment project is why we can’t have nice things.

Oh we all love Hill’s and her latest battle with what some male viewer thinks she would wear, but it’s dross fronted by private school kids who have never gone without. It’s as intellectually anaemic as it is banal. How does this stay on while actual current affairs gets cancelled?

4: The Centrist – Alt Right Culture War Malice 
Nothing screams “bad faith” quite like the new “unauthorised” book about Jacinda by David Cohen…

Media Insider: Unauthorised Jacinda Ardern book – the journalists behind it and the prominent broadcasters who have been interviewed

…I had originally agreed to being interviewed but pulled out after I got a weird vibe from him, I’m bloody glad I did because it turns out that the book is being supported by alt-Right hate blog The Centrist…

Du Plessis-Allan asked Cohen about the Centrist link and whether he was worried that “would possibly lend your book to becoming a bit fringe?”.

…The Centrist, as TDB has pointed out, is the new alt-Right hate blog started by alt-Right culture War Canadian Billionaire Jim Grenon, the same alt-right Billionaire who just took over NZME.

The Centrist was behind the insinuation Benjamin Doyle was a sex fiend, they publish anti-Trans hate, anti-Māori hate, anti-Treaty hate, anti-vaccine hate, and are climate deniers.

That they are behind Cohen’s Jacinda smear book is like finding out your local kindergarten is run by the Nazgul.

5: Bluesky
If you are woke and pay a subscription to The Spinoff, you are on Bluesky, and that is where you should stay! The woke are great for mummy blogger free the nipple vegan cycling protests, not so good at the neoliberal economic hegemonic structure. The woke are great at chasing voters all the way into our enemies arms. If you are on Bluesky – STAY ON BLUESKY

You are what you read
The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free

We need to think of the media not as another commodity, but as “the commons” and a de-commercialised structure demands we see journalism as a common good.

I love how it’s always a great time to buy a house according to the NZ Herald because the Herald’s advertising is so dependent on real estate. There is NEVER a genuine attempt to challenge what a class of Landlords forever screwing renters will actually create in this country, because, according to the NZ Herald, it’s never been a better time to buy a house.

Trust in news has dropped to 33 percent in 2024 from 53 percent in 2020.

From the social contract theory, trust has fallen because people don’t believe the media are upholding their end of that contract.

Part of this is driven by the politicians themselves. Winston’s attack on the media is unhinged madness which works because he is so reliant on low news engaged voters who get their news off Facebook.

This ocean of criticism against the media goes beyond fair criticism to open hostility and abuse.

There is a correlation between distrust and unfair criticism but I also want to see the correlation between loneliness and believing bat shit crazy stuff you’ve read on Facebook.

The social contract of the Fourth Estate has been sold off in favour of a consumer media network.

They examine the way the Public Journalism Fund has been twisted into state propaganda by Winston’s lies.

Our drop in trust has been more extreme than many other countries.

It’s an interesting argument but my sense is that the reason this attack on the media has been so successful is because the mainstream corporate media had been screwing the interests of working people for many years. The first editorial the NZ Herald ever ran was begging white New Zealander’s to go to war against Māori.

Trump’s use of “fake news” was popular because the mainstream media had been selling capitalist values, not Fourth Estate journalism, to Americans for decades.

Social media allowed the legacy media gatekeepers to be overthrown and the resulting anarchy has led to a world of fractured realities.

Winston’s big lie that the entire mainstream media were bought off because of the Public Journalism Fund appeals to the conspiracy electorate New Zealand First need to stay over 5 percent now.

I wrote many bogs critical of the funding notes that NZ on Air put forward that stipulated that if you wanted public funding for Māori media that you couldn’t breach basic tenants of Treaty value because it created the impression of an editorial direction that wasn’t there, but to conflate what were funding notes to mean the entire media had been bribed is Winstonian in its deceitful manipulation.

What Winston chooses to miss is that there was a follow up response by NZ on Air on those funding notes stating that ultimately editorial control was with the content producer.

So yes, there were stupidly woke Wellington guidelines but those notes were superseded by the reminder of editorial independence.

What he also failed to acknowledge is that a large chunk of that Public Journalism money was for positions and training.

By claiming that amounts to the entire media being bribed is not disingenuous or just false, it is malicious.

Winston is channeling Trump with his “Big Lie”.

The “Big Lie” by Winston is that the entire media were bribed.

This has caused enormous damage which he has benefited from.

But again, I think it’s deeper than just Winston AND the righteous cynicism many have towards mainstream media.

Covid was a universal experience, we all sacrificed equally in an unequal world, it has had enormous impacts on us and one of those enormous impacts has been crippling loneliness.

More and more of us are lonely and it was kicked off by being forced to stay home during the pandemic.

That loneliness is desperately corrosive to the spirit and to the person, and the dichotomy of intense loneliness combined with mass 24/7 social media connectivity has made many of us insane with a level of anger and feral hate that is the call signs of a terribly tortured individual.

We have been brainwashed by hate algorithms for the profit margins of vast Tech Gods.

The media you consume ultimately changes the way you think.

Be selective this election.

Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury is a New Zealand media commentator, former radio and TV host, and former executive producer of Alt TV. He edits and publishes The Daily Blog, the largest and leading left-wing political commentary and analysis website. He was given the nickname “Bomber” by a former Craccum editor, reputedly to describe his bombastic personality.

The post Top 30 NZ news media you should follow this election and the Top 5 you should ignore – The Daily Blog appeared first on Café Pacific | David Robie.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/top-30-nz-news-media-you-should-follow-this-election-and-the-top-5-you-should-ignore-the-daily-blog/

Reports that the Trump administration is working to transfer part of Yosemite National Park to a private land developer have heightened concerns among park advocates and the public about privatization of public land.

The proposed deal, which a government spokesperson said has not been finalized, would involve a land swap: The government would give the developer a small area of the park’s land on which to build a private access road between a proposed resort and the park itself. In exchange, the developer would buy land of similar value near the park, or elsewhere in California, and transfer that land to federal ownership.

Environmental advocates and park staff have worried for more than a year that the administration’s cuts to the National Park Service’s budget and staffing would lead to further privatization of the national parks’ land and business operations.

The nation has a long history of similar efforts, including a wildly unpopular 1980 attempt by Reagan administration Interior Secretary James Watt to promote development and expand private concessions in the parks. But debate over using public national park land for private profit dates back more than a century before that.

As I explain in my book, “The Mountains Are Calling: Tourists and the Unmaking of Yosemite National Park,” no park has played a more central role in that debate than Yosemite, in California.

Early concerns

In early 1864, Central American Steamship Transit Company representative Israel Ward Raymond wrote a letter to John Conness, a U.S. senator from California, urging the government to move swiftly to preserve the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoia trees to prevent them from falling into private hands. Five months later, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant Act, ceding the valley and the grove to the state of California, “upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation.” This was years before Yellowstone became the first federal land designated a national park in 1872.

Controversy arose quickly at Yosemite. Two men – James Lamon and James Hutchings – had claimed land in the valley before the federal government gave it to California. Both began commercial operations, Lamon growing cash crops and Hutchings operating a hotel.

California said their businesses threatened the state’s ability to develop roads and trails in Yosemite by competing for tourist dollars. A legal battle ensued and was not resolved until an 1872 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that the men’s land claims had not been fully validated according to the procedures of the time. The California legislature paid both men compensation for their land, and both left the park.

In 1890, neighboring parts of the Yosemite area became America’s third national park – and in 1906, the federal government again took possession of the Yosemite Valley itself and the Mariposa Grove, specifically to incorporate them into an expansion of the national park.

Development rights

Yet, as my research has found, the role of private interests in the park remained unsolved. Private companies under contract to the National Park Service have long provided needed amenities such as lodging and food within the national parks. But questions over what is acceptable in national parks in the pursuit of profit have shaped Yosemite’s history for generations.

In 1925, I found, the question centered on the right to build the first gas station inside the park, in Yosemite Valley. Two private businesses, the Curry Camping Company and the Yosemite National Park Company, had long competed for tourist dollars within the park. Each wanted to build a gas station to boost profits.

Frustrated over the need to decide, National Park Service Director Horace Albright ordered the rival firms to simplify management of the park’s concessions. The companies merged, and the newly formed Yosemite Park and Curry Company was granted the exclusive rights to run lodges, restaurants and other facilities within the park, including the new gas station.

But as I found in my research, the park service and the concessions company did not always see eye to eye on the purpose of the park. The conflict between profit and preservation is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the construction of a ski area within the park in the early 1930s. The park service initially opposed the development of Badger Pass Ski Area as not conducive to the national park ideal, but the Yosemite Park and Curry Company insisted it was key to boosting winter use of the park.

In 1973, the Music Corporation of America, an entertainment conglomerate, bought the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. The company already had a tourist attraction operating near Hollywood, where visitors could pay to tour movie sets, but had not yet changed its name to Universal Studios or launched major theme parks in Florida and California. Its purchase of the park’s concessions set off a firestorm of controversy over fears of turning Yosemite into a theme park.

That didn’t happen, but annual park visitor numbers climbed from 2.5 million to 3.8 million over the 20 years MCA ran the concessions, which sparked concerns about development and overcrowding in the park. Conservationists argued the park service had allowed the corporate giant to promote and develop the park in ways that threatened the very aspects of the park most people came to enjoy.

With three restaurants, two service stations with a total of 15 gas pumps, two cafeterias, two grocery stores, seven souvenir shops, a delicatessen, a bank, a skating rink, three swimming pools, a golf course, two tennis courts, kennels, a barbershop, a beauty shop, Badger Pass Ski Area and three lodges, the Yosemite Valley was a busy commercial district. Critics argued that such development contradicted the park service’s mandate to leave national parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Who owns the names?

Falling profits and consolidation within the music industry led MCA to sell its concessions rights in Yosemite in 1993. The Delaware North Companies, a global hospitality corporation, took over and ran the park’s concessions until 2016, when it sold the rights to Aramark.

But in that sale, the question of public resources and private profits arose again. Delaware North demanded $51 million in compensation for Aramark continuing to use the names of several historic properties within the park, such as the Ahwahnee, a hotel, and Curry Village, another group of visitor accommodations. The company claimed those names were a part of its assets under its contract with the park service.

The park service rejected the claim, saying the names, which dated back more than a century, belonged to the American people. But to avoid legal problems during the transition, the agency temporarily renamed several sites, including calling the Ahwahnee the Majestic Yosemite Hotel and changing Curry Village to Half Dome Village. Public outrage erupted, denouncing the claim by Delaware North as commercial overreach that threatened to distort Yosemite’s heritage. In 2019, the park service and Aramark agreed to pay Delaware North a total of $12 million to settle the dispute, and the original names were restored.

Renewed interest in commercial efforts

In June 2025, Yosemite again took center stage in the dispute over the role of federal funding versus private interests at the start of the second Trump administration when a group of climbers unfurled an American flag upside down off El Capitan in protest of the administration’s cuts in personnel and slashing of the park service’s budget.

Conservationists, including former National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, argued that by defunding the park service and laying off as much as a quarter of its workforce, the Trump administration was “laying the groundwork to privatize” the national parks by allowing corporate interests more access to public lands. Those concerns echo ones raised during the first Trump administration, when the White House argued privatization would better serve the American public by improving visitor experiences and saving federal dollars.

Members of Congress and former park service officials say the reported effort in 2026 to turn over park land to a private owner would be a major blow to federal efforts to protect parks and conserve land.

Whichever side prevails in the short term, the debate over the role of private interests within national parks like Yosemite will undoubtedly continue.

This article contains material previously published July 31, 2025.

Michael Childers 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/02/yosemite-again-in-corporate-crosshairs-embodies-the-long-war-over-us-national-park-privatization/