Vodafone Australia suffered a major nationwide outage today that may have affected millions of customers. Customers of Australia’s third-largest telecommunications company in Darwin, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Canberra reported having no service for several hours early this morning.

At roughly 11am, Vodafone, which is owned by TPG Telecom, issued a statement saying it was aware customers were experiencing “intermittent issues” with its network. It said the issue “has been isolated and resolved, and services are now being progressively restored”.

However, many people online were still reporting problems with the network hours later. What caused the outage? In its statement, Vodafone said “the disruption was caused by a power outage at one of our network hubs”.

A power outage, though it seems unthinkable in an era when you would expect backup power and batteries to be installed in all key facilities, could cause equipment and systems to go offline, malfunction or fail.

The nationwide nature of the outage suggests the Vodafone network includes a centralised “core network”. The impact of a fault at a “single point of failure” in a centralised core network could cause a cascading infrastructure and system failure.

This would ultimately result in a national outage. In a decentralised telecommunications network, a failure at one facility would cause the network traffic to be automatically switched through to an alternative facility. This improves the network’s resilience.

Vodafone recommended customers restart their phones to restore the network connection. But according to several online reports, this did not fix the problem. This incident comes a month after Vodafone launched a major marketing campaign featuring US comedian Ali Wong.

The campaign claims the company offers better value and coverage than one of its major competitors, Telstra. Speaking to The Australian in March about the campaign and Vodafone’s promising future, TPG’s chief marketing officer Bec Darley said: Any previous network issues no longer exist.

A spokesperson for Vodafone told The Conversation the company is “reviewing this incident and working to strengthen the resilience of our network to help prevent a recurrence”. Too many national outages There have been several other major telecommunications outages in recent years.

These outages aren’t just an inconvenience. They can disrupt businesses and threaten public safety. In September 2025, an Optus outage that affected people’s ability to call emergency services was linked to the death of two people.

Vodafone also suffered major network issues in 2021, 2016, 2012, 2011 and 2010. Making matters worse for Vodafone this time around is the fact its own network status checker failed as well. Vodafone’s ‘network status checker’ also suffered an outage.

Vodafone The Vodafone spokesperson told The Conversation the status checker page “is supported by some of the systems hosted at the same network hub that was impacted by the power issue, which is why it was temporarily unavailable”.

Much has been said recently about telecommunications companies needing to provide timely and factual information to consumers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, in its role as the telecommunications regulator, has taken steps to provide stronger consumer protections during telecommunications outages.

For example, in April last year, the authority set new rules to ensure telecommunications customers are better informed during network outages. The message isn’t getting through In its most recent update, Australia’s Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reported a 5.7% increase in consumer complaints over the past quarter.

This latest national telecommunications outage will be a major test for federal communications minister Anika Wells as well as the Australian Communications and Media Authority. An announcement of an independent inquiry should be expected in coming days.

A power outage should not take down a national telecommunications network. The independent inquiry should fully report on Vodafone’s network design and where the single point of failures are. It should also examine what can be done to improve reliability and resiliency.

It seems the message the federal government and the Australian Communications and Media Authority have been trying to impart to the telcos is not getting through.

Mark A Gregory has received research and project funding from the .au Domain Administration, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Australian Research council and from state and federal governments.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/vodafone-has-suffered-another-major-outage-a-telco-expert-explains-what-went-wrong/

Keith Rankin, 18 June 2026 – The latest quarterly economic growth data were released by Statistics today. The following chart summarises eight-quarter (ie two yearly) economic growth rates from 1990. I have colour coded the data to match the political party leading the government for each period. (Shades are lighter where the data spans a change of government.)

In the charted data, it is clearly possible to see the effects of two international financial crises, one pandemic, and two domestic fiscal crises. While both of the two fiscal crises are/were associated with National governments, the first ‘Richardson crisis’ followed on from the Labour-associated economic crisis linked to Roger Douglas. (The data series available only allowed me to go back to 1990.)

An important point to note is that, historically, there has generally been a significant ‘bounce-back’ of economic growth following a period of economic slowth. (There was an exceptionally large bounce-back in New Zealand in the 1930s after the Great Depression.)

The two exceptions to this bounce-back generalisation are the two growth phases preceding the two National-led domestic fiscal crises. The Richardson recession followed a period of flat economic growth from 1986. And the Luxton/Willis recession seems to have flattened what should have been a post-Covid19 bounce-back.

Recession? Or just slow growth?

Although the chart above doesn’t show a technical recession in 2025 or 2026, there has certainly been a recession, according to the latest figures. Real production GDP was $73,625 million (expressed in 2009/10 prices) in the December 2025 quarter, whereas it was $73,752 million two years earlier.

It’s a similar story of decline for the June and September quarters of 2025 (when National was in charge), compared to the same quarters of 2023 (when Labour was in charge). It means that the total GDP for the year ended March 2026 was $282.97 billion compared to $283,180 billion for the year ended March 2024. This is despite significant population growth in New Zealand between 2023 and 2025. And this is despite a markedly improving terms-of-trade; meaning a highly favourable global economic environment for New Zealand.

GDP lower than it was two years earlier is a recession. This latest recession seems to have been particularly unnecessary, occurring in otherwise unusually favourable times. Why is there so little criticism? Where is Labour’s evidence-based critique of National?

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Asia Pacific Report

A member of the Aotearoa delegation on the Global Sumud flotilla humanitarian aid mission seeking to break the illegal Gaza enclave blockade imposed by Israel since 2007 clashed with New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters in a parliamentary hearing yesterday.
Peters was attempting to defend his heavily criticised government response to Israel’s war on Gaza that has killed more than 75,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — while speaking to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee yesterday.
Peters was answering a line of questions from MPs on whether New Zealand had spoken strongly enough against Israel, when Hāhona Ormsby — a flotilla activist who was brutally abused by Israeli military after being kidnapped in the Mediterranean sea near Cyprus last month and detained — stood up and interrupted him.

READ MORE: A world first: Australia will now investigate Israel over Gaza flotilla brutality
France opens ‘war crimes’ probe into Israel’s treatment of Gaza activists
Other allegations of Israeli brutality against Gaza flotilla activists
The Global Sumud Aotearoa dossier answering Israeli claims

“Is it New Zealand First, Winston? Or is it Israel First?” Ormsby asked.
He then asked whether New Zealand would sanction Israel, or “investigate Israel for the people that were on the flotilla who were brutally beaten and tortured?”
Ormsby and his fellow activists were then ordered by committee chair Tim van de Molen to leave the room. The video livestream feed was also cut during the protest.
Global Sumud Aotearoa Delegation activists came to Wellington this week to challenge Peters over what they condemned as “government inaction following the abduction and mistreatment of New Zealand citizens” by the Israeli military forces in both May and last year.
Australia, France, other countries investigating
Unlike Australia, France, Spain, Malaysia, Türkiye and several other countries, New Zealand and Peters have failed to launch a government investigation into the mistreatment of New Zealand citizens.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP), under instruction from Foreign Minister Penny Wong have now launched an investigation into rape and torture by Israeli forces on Australian citizens who were detained in international waters.

“Knowing we were coming to Wellington, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent us an email yesterday asking us to provide information on what happened to our activists,” a spokesperson for Global Sumud Aotearoa, Rana Hamida, said.
‘Israel both criminal and judge’
“The message was that they would put this to the Israelis — in other words: they will leave it to Israel to be both the criminal and the judge. That’s not good enough.
“Malaysia, for example, is taking Israel to the International Court of Justice over the kidnapping and violence dished out to their citizens.”
Hāhona Ormsby, who endured multiple beatings by the Israelis after being seized in international waters and taken to Israel, said: “Calling in the Israeli ambassador and slapping him with a wet bus ticket over tea and scones does not count as meaningful action.”
The government has treated people like Ormsby as a “threat” while doing nothing to hold Israel to account, Global Sumud Aotearoa said in a statement.
“I had two detectives come and interview me this week to assess if I was a ‘threat’. Imagine that? I joined the Sumud flotilla armed with nothing other than aroha and I — a New Zealand citizen — get treated as the problem,” Ormsby said.
“But some Israeli soldier fresh from killing women, children, and babies in Gaza and Lebanon knows they can holiday in New Zealand with no questions asked.”
Global Sumud Aotearoa is demanding that the NZ government launch its own “non-Israeli-led investigation”. New Zealand should coordinate with other governments who had already launched inquiries into the attack on their citizens, the group said in its statement.
“A first step would be for the government to formally interview our returning activists. Second, the government should liaise with the Turkish authorities who sent planes to Israel to bring over 400 detained Sumud activists to safety in Istanbul.
“It should be noted New Zealand provided absolutely no support whatsoever to their citizens,” the statement said.
All the Sumud people who were flown out of Israel, including the New Zealand citizens, were given medical examinations and forensic interviews in Türkiye.
Some, including Hāhona Ormsby and fellow Kiwi Mousa Taher, received hospital treatment for their injuries.
“MFAT requesting medical records from Türkiye would be a useful place to start,” the Sumud statement said.
Global Sumud Aotearoa has widely distributed a detailed response to “Israeli propaganda that ludicrously suggested that the black eyes, broken noses and ribs inflicted on citizens from over 40 countries was an elaborate hoax”.
“The photo of the damaged face of New Zealand citizen Julien Blondel, beaten by Israelis in an attack in international waters on April 29, should have triggered immediate action by the NZ government,” the statement said.
“The Israelis, realising that New Zealand and other Western governments stood with them, not their own citizens, increased the level of violence in their June attack on over 50 vessels.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/is-it-nz-first-or-israel-first-hahona-challenges-nz-foreign-minister-peters/

Jeremy Clarkson revealed his prostate cancer diagnosis this week in the latest season of Clarkson’s Farm. Amazon MGM Studios UK media celebrity Jeremy Clarkson this week revealed he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.

He told his co-stars about the diagnosis on air during the latest season of Clarkson’s Farm. At the time of filming, he said he didn’t know whether he would be back for another season.

However, he said the cancer had been caught early and he was receiving treatment. Clarkson specifically noted his cancer was “aggressive”. So what does this actually mean? And what makes some cancers more aggressive than others?

What is an aggressive cancer? When doctors and scientists refer to a cancer being aggressive, they mean it’s fast-growing. This is the definition authorities, such as the National Cancer Institute in the United States or the Cancer Council Victoria in Australia, use.

Cancers occur when your body’s cells acquire DNA mutations that alter their behaviour. For instance, certain mutations might lead cells to evade death or divide uncontrollably. Mutations can also affect how fast this division occurs.

For instance, DNA mutations leading to excessive production of the MYC protein allow cells to grow and divide more rapidly. Dividing quickly and uncontrollably is the simplest measure of cancer aggression. As the name suggests, aggressive cancers are quite dangerous.

The speed at which they can develop and grow means they are more likely to be diagnosed only once they have reached a more advanced stage and spread to other parts of the body. Sadly, once cancers have spread and are considered “advanced”, they are very difficult to treat.

However, if an aggressive cancer is caught early, there are usually treatment options. Read more: What is a ‘cancer gene’? How genetic mutations lead to cancer How about treatment? Sometimes, the aggressiveness of a cancer can be exploited as a weakness and used against it.

For example, chemotherapy works by damaging DNA. When cells divide, if their DNA is also damaged, they die. But as cancer cells grow faster than most other cells in our body, the chemotherapy essentially destroys the cancer cells first.

Therefore, fast-growing cancer cells can be more susceptible to chemotherapy. A good example is the blood cancer known as Burkitt lymphoma. Burkitt lymphomas generally express abnormally high levels of MYC protein, making them highly aggressive.

Most Burkitt lymphoma patients (64–85%) can be cured with intensive chemotherapy. This was also one of the first cancer types to be cured by chemotherapy alone, back in the 1960s. Why are some cancers more aggressive than others?

Every cancer is different. Different genetic mutations drive different abnormal behaviours, and these behaviours are linked to the cancer’s aggressiveness. And, for every part of the body, there can be dozens of different sub-types of cancer.

However, many cancers share certain characteristics, meaning we can make some generalisations. For example, pancreatic cancers and a sub-type of breast cancer known as “triple-negative” are highly aggressive. They grow rapidly and have limited treatment options.

But there are always new treatments being developed for many aggressive cancers once thought untreatable. One example is the development of a new drug that targets the cancer-promoting protein, KRAS. In clinical trials, this drug nearly doubled the survival of people with aggressive pancreatic cancers.

Read more: Breakthrough drug nearly doubles survival with advanced pancreatic cancer – an oncologist explains how daraxonrasib overcame an ‘undruggable’ disease How about Clarkson’s cancer? It is impossible to speculate about Clarkson’s case without more information.

Most prostate cancers are not considered aggressive, and people can live for many years with slower growing, non-spreading, low-risk forms. For more aggressive forms, the prognosis often depends on how early the cancer is detected.

Prostate cancer is more common in men over the age of 50, but symptoms are not always apparent early, and screening techniques are imperfect.

If you are concerned about your cancer risk, it’s best to see your doctor for personal advice.

Sarah Diepstraten receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cure Cancer Australia and My Room Children’s Cancer Charity.

John (Eddie) La Marca receives funding from Cancer Council Victoria.

He is affiliated with the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/jeremy-clarkson-has-aggressive-prostate-cancer-but-what-makes-some-cancers-more-aggressive-than-others/

lange x/Pexels I don’t have a country. I am trying to find a country to belong to. Hassan* speaks softly. We sit on the floor of the modest home he rents with his wife Noor* and children as he tells me about fleeing Myanmar over a decade ago.

We have no country, because I am Rohingya. We are born in Burma but we have no documents. No citizenship, no birth registration. No nothing. Hassan is one of the many stateless people I spoke to while researching statelessness in Australia.

Published today, the report, co authored by Michelle Foster, Amelia Walters and I, reveals Hassan is not alone. Far from finding security since arriving in Australia, thousands of people in his situation continue to live in a state of legal limbo – with devastating consequences.

What does it mean to be stateless? To be stateless means no country in the world recognises you as legally belonging. Lack of nationality can negatively shape every aspect of a person’s life. Stateless people can struggle to access the most basic human rights, such as education, health care, and the ability to work and move freely.

The impacts on children can be especially debilitating, robbing them of their childhood and the chance to build a future. Millions of people are estimated to be denied a nationality globally; one third are believed to be children.

Due to different citizenship laws around the world, some people are born into statelessness, while others become stateless, usually due to discrimination. Our new report, Understanding Statelessness in Australia, is based on analysis of more than 800 decisions by tribunals and courts, and almost 100 interviews with stateless people, lawyers, health workers, policy experts and community workers.

We found Australia is failing to identity and adequately protect stateless people. It doesn’t have to be this way. Australia can follow the example of the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands and establish a framework to allow people to resettle within a reasonable timeframe and with dignity.

For instance, the UK introduced a formal “statelessness determination procedure” in 2013, after a similar national study on the issue. This procedure provides a framework for recognising a person’s statelessness status, allowing them to acquire residence and socioeconomic rights, with a pathway to naturalisation.

Although far from perfect, it shows other countries have recognised the importance of the issue. Australia, meanwhile, is lagging behind. A state of uncertainty Following the second world war, many stateless people came to Australia.

They worked hard, built homes and families, and became valued members of the community. But today’s stateless arrivals are treated very differently. For years they live in a state of uncertainty. Hassan and Noor began life in Australia behind bars, with their children unable to attend school for months at a time.

Immigration detention was the only home their third child knew for the first 16 months of his life. Eventually the family was released into community detention and then placed on a series of endless, rolling short-term visas.

This presented problems, particularly for Noor, who has a chronic health condition. Hassan explained how: Every time the bridging visa would expire, our Medicare card would expire […] Sometimes every three months, sometimes every six months.

The constantly expiring visas made it hard for my wife to get medical treatment when she needed it. Thousands of stateless people live legally in Australia, but with no pathway to permanency. They can’t be returned to the country they came from as they are not recognised as belonging.

Despite signing up to key international obligations to protect stateless people, Australia is largely ignoring their plight while they languish in a state of legal limbo. Another young woman, Nur, told me she recently finished high school but has been unable to study medicine because of visa restrictions.

She is also prohibited from working, saying: I want to be useful and do something with my time. I tried volunteering for a large charity, but I couldn’t get a police check because I don’t have enough documents.

Many stateless people in Australia like Nur are unable to build lives in Australia, despite residing here for more than a decade.

Amir is a Kurdish man who was detained and subjected to short-term visas for more than a decade but then was given a special form of permanent visa in recognition of his sporting abilities, and went on to captain the Australian blind football team on the global stage.

Yet he worries for others, saying: Within my community in Australia, I see so many stateless people who haven’t been given visas […] Everyone needs a clear pathway and plan; some form of certainty. When you are stateless, you’ve always been uncertain about your life […] Uncertainty makes you feel unwell.

There has to be a cut-off. We must say, “OK, these people have suffered for 10–15 years. Enough is enough.” […] Give them a visa so they can get on with their life. Very real consequences Legislative gaps and bureaucratic delays have very real human consequences.

After 14 years of waiting to become a citizen, Hassan says the limited hope he has left is for his children: I’m tired of trying to understand what is happening. I just want to go to work, support my family and come home.

I want a simple life. I am old now, and I am still not a citizen […] My time is finished now, I only care about my children. The future is about my children. *Names changed to protect identity

Katie Robertson works for the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness (Melbourne Law School).

Her work has been funded by philanthropic funding from the Cameron Foundation, Mallesons and Igniting Change. She received a grant from the Churchill Foundation in 2022 for a Fellowship, and a small grant in 2023 to attend a conference from the Victoria Law Foundation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/thousands-of-stateless-people-live-in-limbo-due-to-gaps-in-australias-system-report/

RNZ Pacific

A Pacific politics expert and ni-Vanuatu woman has become the first woman to be appointed to lead the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat.

Anna Naupa, described by the Vanuatu government as “one of the nation’s finest minds”, is the new director-general of the sub-regional bloc, which is headquartered in Port Vila.
The MSG is made up of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji and the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) of New Caledonia.

READ MORE: Other MSG reports

In a statement yesterday, Vanuatu’s Office of the Prime Minister said Naupa’s appointment was “a historic moment”.
“Since the MSG was founded in 1986 by the giants of Melanesia — Paias Wingti of Papua New Guinea, Father Walter Lini of Vanuatu, Ezekiel Alebua of Solomon Islands, and our brothers from the FLNKS [Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front] — Vanuatu has waited 40 years to lead this organisation.
“Today, that wait ends,” it said.
It said Naupa’s appointment sends a clear message to every young ni-Vanuatu girl to “aspire for the best, because the highest offices in our region are within your reach”.
Inspiring new generation
Naupa’s leadership will inspire a new generation to dream bigger and serve boldly, it added.
The Vanuatu government said it holds immense confidence in Naupa’s capabilities, leadership, and integrity, and commended the MSG and the selection team for a transparent process “that has delivered the right leader for this moment”.
Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat congratulated Naupa.
“We know the MSG was born from struggle — its heart has always been the political aspirations of the Kanak people and the big issues facing Melanesia,” the Office of the Prime Minister’s statement said.
“Over the years the organisation has grown, expanding its focus to trade, sports, culture, and other areas of common interest that bind our nations. Vanuatu believes the success of the MSG under Dr Naupa’s leadership will depend on never losing sight of that founding spirit — solidarity, justice, and self-determination for our peoples.
“Anna, you carry not just a title, but the hopes of a region. You carry Vanuatu’s pride, Melanesia’s trust, and the spirit of Father Walter Lini’s vision.”
Naupa replaces Papua New Guinea’s Leonard Louma, who was appointed in February 2022 and finished his term in late 2024.
Solomon Islander Ilan Kiloe, who is the political and security affairs programme manager, was acting in the role following Louma’s departure.
The MSG Secretariat has not made any official announcements on Naupa’s appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/vanuatus-anna-naupa-becomes-first-woman-to-lead-msg-secretariat/

Kindness in Power Media Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has donated her personal income from speaking engagements, book projects, and community initiatives over recent years — estimated at NZ$3.8 million — to a nationwide homelessness support initiative across Aotearoa.

The project helps fund 60 transitional housing units and more than 120 emergency shelter beds for families in need. “I have witnessed firsthand the impact that homelessness can have on families and communities across New Zealand,” Dame Jacinda Ardern said during a charity event in Auckland.

READ MORE:Former NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern donates personal income to homeless project Jacinda Ardern on Australia: ‘It’s a wonderful place to be’ Other Jacinda Ardern reports “I have always believed that if we have the ability to help others, we should do so in a way that creates meaningful and lasting change.

No one deserves to live without safety, dignity, or a place to call home.” According to organisations involved in the project, the funding will be used to expand long-term housing assistance programmes, emergency accommodation services, community food initiatives, counselling support, and resources for families facing financial hardship.

Project coordinators said the initiative will focus particularly on helping families with children, single parents, and individuals experiencing housing insecurity rebuild stable and independent lives. Supporters across New Zealand have praised Ardern for what many are calling one of the most compassionate and impactful humanitarian gestures she has made since leaving office.

Messages of support quickly spread across social media, with many people saying the donation reflected the values of empathy, kindness, and community responsibility that have long been associated with her public service career. Â

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/former-nz-pm-jacinda-ardern-donates-book-media-earnings-to-homelessness-project/

Despite being one of the Liberals’ strongest performers, frontbencher Jonno Duniam is quitting politics by the end of this year – and leaving with some regrets. Duniam, 43, is Angus Taylor’s home affairs spokesman and has been in the Senate for nearly a decade.

He’s been central in the crafting of the opposition’s immigration policy, which is still to be fully released. Duniam joined the podcast to reflect on his time in politics, the future of the Liberals, dealing with One Nation – and how his sons responded to the news of him quitting politics.

I’ve been in and around politics for 25 years, ten of those as a senator […] It means you aren’t there to help with the very basic things, like getting ready for school and packing lunches and picking up and dropping off. […] It is not a good feeling sitting in Canberra doing your job while there is an issue that needs dealing with for family.

And I know that is a common issue. I’ve talked about with colleagues across the political spectrum […] This is not unique to politics [… But] when you’re 20, 25 weeks of the year away from home, it does mount up.

Duniam recounts breaking the news of his retirement to his three boys, aged 11 to 17. I snuck out early to pick up three copies of the local newspaper in which the story was broken that I was going to be leaving politics.

And I left a copy of the paper for each of my sons. And my youngest son, Spencer, got up and read it and he was heard to say, as he was flicking through the paper, ‘I never thought this day would come.’ He’s my youngest.

My oldest has missed out on a lot of me being around, he’s on the verge of turning 18. And my 15 year old, I think you could only say is elated by this decision. So I know very much that I’ve made the right call, and I think those boys are going to benefit.

Why he’s leaving, even with some guilt Duniam denied he was quitting politics because of the Coalition’s faltering performance – now running a long way third in the polls, behind One Nation and Labor: It’s got nothing to do with where we’re at, but everything to do with my own life and where I’m at […] Now that does leave me with a feeling of guilt, I’ll be honest.

There’s a sense of regret in leaving friends and trusted colleagues on the field of battle, when they’re going to keep fighting a very, very tough fight and I’m leaving. […] That is something that doesn’t sit easily with me, but […] I can’t do my job justice and be a father to my boys properly.

Something was going to have to give and I made the decision that it is my boys and my family that came first, ahead of this job, after ten years of giving it everything I’ve got.

Looking for ‘signs of life’ in the Liberals On why the Liberals are in such a bad state, Duniam said they did “nothing” during the nine months after the 2025 election. For the first nine months after that devastating election result, we did nothing.

We did nothing to turn the dial […] When you’re out in the community, people [were] saying, you know ‘come on, you guys have got to get your act together.’ […] In the lead up to our leadership change, there was frankly you know, no sign of us doing that […] And that’s why, in my belief, people started changing when it comes to answering those polling questions – ‘Who would you vote for?

One Nation, the Liberals, Labor, Green’ – people were going from the Libs to One Nation in great numbers.

He said since becoming Liberal leader, Angus Taylor had been providing “signs of life” for Australians who’d turned away from the party – and while “it’s far from job done”, the Liberals were “on the right track” now.

Why it’s ‘mad’ to be talking One Nation deals now On potential preference deals with One Nation, Duniam said it’s “mad” to suggest the party should be considering that now: I do not for one minute subscribe to this notion that we should be having conversations about preference deals or coalition governments right now.

It’s mad to suggest that that’s what we should be doing as a party. Would you ever see a Labor politician saying, ‘you know what, it’s okay if you want to vote Green, because we are not, sort of, Green enough for you’.

On the Coalition’s immigration policy Duniam isn’t quitting politics immediately, partly because he wants to finalise his party’s immigration policy before he goes.

On the challenge of crafting that policy without dividing Australians, Duniam said: The immigration debate – if you just take the headline out of a press conference that I may have done or Angus or whoever – it’s easy to turn it into a divisive anti-immigrant rant from the Liberals trying to outdo One Nation. [But] when you sit down and explain it to someone who might have misapprehended our policy intentions, they accept what we’re doing and think, ‘oh, that’s actually not so bad after all beyond the headline’.

That is the difficulty in Australian politics, of course. We’ve got to talk to all Australians on issues that are important to them. And […] if we keep trying out One Nation, One Nation on […] particular issues like immigration to the exclusion of others, then we won’t win back these votes.

But I know our plan will be for all Australians, on a range of issues that everyone is concerned about. Attracting young talent, despite ‘clowns in Canberra’ Duniam was still confident young people would keep wanting to join politics, as he did at an early age.

But he agreed the state of the politics today doesn’t always help. We don’t help ourselves when we behave in certain ways, and people think ‘who would be a politician?

Look at those clowns in Canberra.’ So there is an element of the nature of the industry we’re in that probably is less helpful to attracting young people than the busyness of the job itself.

He said none of his three sons wanted to run for politics now – but he would support them if they ever changed their minds. I think we do need good people – and I hope to raise good men in my sons – to run for parliament […] I’ve loved doing this job.

Yes, there have been times I’ve hated it. Of course, I’d be lying to you if I said otherwise.

But, by and large, it’s been the privilege and honour of a lifetime to represent Tasmania in the Senate. […] That is the one thing I will leave parliament knowing […] There are a lot of flawed, broken people in that building, and I happen to be one of them.

But, for the most part, people want to the best they can for the people they represent.

I might disagree with how they want to get there, or the policy or the law that they’re proposing, but I applaud them for wanting to have a go.

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/2026/06/18/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jonno-duniam-on-guilt-and-relief-about-quitting-politics/

The federal government’s cut to the fuel excise is due to expire at the end of June, meaning the cost of filling up a 65-litre petrol vehicle could rise by about A from July 1.

This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese left the door open to extending the temporary cut for petrol or for diesel. The cut was put in place to offset the surge in fuel costs following the start of the Iran war in late February.

While the cut provides some inflation relief for drivers, it is a blunt way of achieving fairness. The three-month cut has cost the government some .55 billion in lost revenue. A more radical reform package that would be budget-neutral would replace the fuel excise with a road user charging system.

Cost-of-living relief Before the reduction, the fuel excise was 52.6 cents per litre of petrol and diesel for passenger vehicles, and 32c a litre for heavy vehicle road users. Fuel for off-road uses, including agriculture and mining, were exempt.

In 2024–25, the fuel excise raised .6 billion in revenue. The tax is not directly allocated to governments to fund spending on roads, maintenance and other road services. But it serves as a user charge for drivers for the costs to society of government-funded roads and road maintenance.

When it announced the halving of the fuel excise, the government said it wanted to relieve the financial stress caused by the spike in oil prices. The price of petrol was cut by 26.3c a litre and the heavy vehicle road user charge was suspended.

However, this reduction has resulted in a number of problems that could be largely reversed by returning to the original rates from July 1.

Read more: Halving the fuel excise is smart politics, but flawed policy Better options for income support The loss of government revenue means a larger federal budget deficit, at the same time as providing a boost to consumer spending.

These two forces work against the Reserve Bank of Australia’s mission to dampen demand in the economy to bring down inflation, with a series of interest rate hikes this year. It’s understandable the industries most affected by higher petrol costs – such as road transport and construction – welcomed the fuel tax relief, and want to see it extended.

Travel, groceries (particularly fruit and vegetables) and new home construction all cost more when fuel prices rise. This is an inflation risk the Reserve Bank has been watching closely for months. However, from a fairness perspective, there are better policy options to help lower-income households deal with high fuel prices.

More direct and effective policies would be to increase unemployment benefits, disability and aged benefits, or reduce the lowest income tax rates. Cutting the excise rate for petrol and diesel provides a benefit to wealthy and poor drivers alike.

It is a blunt way to reduce higher living costs for those on lower incomes. And households without petrol motor vehicles or those that take relatively short trips gain very little from the lower petrol prices.

A subsidy for fossil fuels More broadly, cutting the excise on petroleum products has a number of negative effects on the allocation of scarce resources in the economy. The reduction is, in effect, a subsidy for polluting vehicles that run on fossil fuels, generating greenhouse gases and ultimately contributing to climate change.

The subsidy reduces the incentive to switch from fossil fuel to electric vehicles. And by making fuel cheaper, the subsidy also encourages increased road usage by households and businesses rather than, for instance, encouraging public transit use.

A chance for radical reform While it might not have the political appetite to do so, the government could consider a more radical reform package than returning to the old rates of fuel excise. Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have surged this year as consumers switched from petrol vehicles, with EV and hybrid sales jumping to 46% of all vehicles sold in May.

But these cars still use government-provided roads and services, and do not pay the fuel excise. A road user charge with similar treatment for petrol and electric vehicles could largely replace the fuel excise, and would apply to all drivers.

This type of charge, which has been debated since the 1970s, is used in other advanced economies to reduce congestion and influence travel behaviour. There could be a couple of categories for vehicles of different weights, as SUVs and other heavy vehicles cause more damage to roads.

And a nationwide road pricing policy could reduce reliance on the current patchwork of declining fuel excise revenues, road tolls and vehicle registration fees.

John Freebairn 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/2026/06/18/halving-the-fuel-tax-was-a-bad-idea-and-it-shouldnt-be-extended-theres-a-fairer-alternative/

The greatest challenge to India’s government in years began as an online joke. On May 16, after Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant described unemployed youth as “cockroaches”, Abhijeet Dipke, an international student in the United States, mused on X, “What if all cockroaches come together?” Thousands responded.

Dipke had hit a nerve. Soon after, he launched a parody political party that would represent all “cockroaches”, calling it the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), a play on the name of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

But as Dipke returned to India on June 6 and the CJP’s rallies did not lead to a revolution that toppled the BJP-led government, many have dismissed the online movement’s chances of succeeding “in real life”.

But perhaps the better question is, has the CJP fundamentally changed Indian politics?

‘Voice of the lazy and unemployed’ On the new party’s website, Dipke described the CJP as the “Voice of the Lazy and Unemployed” and insisted membership required being both, as well as chronically online and “able to rant professionally”.

The CJP became an instant internet sensation, accruing 10 million Instagram followers in four days. The only account to grow faster belonged to Kim Taehyung, a member of the K-pop boy band BTS, in 2021. Within a month, CJP’s following had reached 22.5 million, more than twice as many as the BJP.

The CJP’s success, like many good jokes, mixed humour and pain. It spoke to young Indians who face intense competition for university places, unemployment and precarious gig work, a mental health crisis, and eco-anxiety about increasing pollution and longer heat waves.

Generational pain Chief Justice Kant’s “cockroach” remarks followed weeks of student protests against the cancellation of the national medical entrance exam, after its questions were leaked and widespread irregularities were uncovered. Students also alleged there were discrepancies in the class 12 (school leaving) and public service entrance exams.

The exams are intensely competitive, and the education system is so underfunded that families drain their savings to pay for private coaching. For many, cancellation was not a delay. Their families could not afford a re-sit.

This crushing exam pressure reflects deeper problems. Much of India’s economic growth has gone to the top 10%, who earn three-fifths of the country’s income and own two-thirds of its wealth. Meanwhile, 40% of young graduates are unemployed.

Young Indians are anxious about the future, distrustful of unaccountable institutions, and convinced the rules no longer work. They have also seen advocates punished for criticising the government. The CJP represents a break in the cycle of silent frustration.

Its immediate demands were the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan – whom it holds accountable for the exam fiascos – and educational improvements.

It also pressed for broader democratic reforms: judicial independence, voting rights, 50% parliamentary representation for women, a media free from billionaire capture (such as the BJP-aligned Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani), penalties for politicians’ party defections and public accountability for government spending.

Crackdown response The government response was heavy-handed. It blocked the CJP’s website in India and pressured X to suspend its account. Dipke also reported its Instagram account was hacked, so the CJP switched to WhatsApp, Telegram and Discord.

The government justified its X ban on “national security” grounds. Officials also invoked familiar claims of foreign interference, and incorrectly claimed the CJP’s followers were overseas or bots. Speaking on France 24, Dipke dismissed these allegations, insisting “94% of our followers are from India”.

The government’s jumpy response may reflect broader anxieties. Gen Z-driven protests have recently brought down governments in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, young voters propelled actor-turned-politician C.

Joseph Vijay’s new party to electoral success. The opposition Congress party has recognised the shift. Its AI-driven campaign against the controversial development in the Nicobar Islands is aimed at Gen Z voters and includes a cockroach-headed human like those on the CJP website.

Did the revolution fizzle? The CJP’s first offline test came after Dipke returned from the United States last week and led rallies at multiple cities across the country. At Monday’s Jaipur rally, he was attacked as he was carried through the crowd, then tried to protect his attacker.

The protests were well attended, but they did not start another Gen Z revolution. This is likely because CJP has yet to develop a coherent ideological core or messaging strategy. Despite their calls for equal representation, they have had no female spokespeople.

The CJP also has no plans to establish a formalised party, saying it would remain a “pressure group” to hold the government accountable. A growing blind spot A youth-led revolution is less likely in India than elsewhere in South Asia.

Over the past decade, the BJP has combined populist rhetoric, nationalist ideology, local networks, caste-based social engineering, and a disciplined party machine to dominate India’s democratic institutions. The party has also made an art of co-opting other movements, and there are fears it could do the same with the CJP.

Yet the CJP’s rise suggests a potential weak spot for the ruling party. Gen Z voters have come of age with near-universal smartphone access and constant connectivity. Across class and caste lines, they are digitally fluent and politically aware, while remaining detached from traditional political structures.

They will soon be India’s largest voting block. Whether the CJP succeeds electorally may matter less than what it represents. It has shown a generation that can stand up to surveillance, censorship and fear.

It has also used the tool that authoritarians fear most – humour – to do so.

Even if the CJP fails, this idea, like cockroaches, will be hard to exterminate.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/indias-youth-led-cockroach-party-may-prove-as-hard-to-kill-as-its-namesake/

DBenitostock/Getty Images Public debates about transgender issues are often framed as disagreements over evidence or safety. In my new article published in the International Journal of Transgender Health, I argue current policy shifts are better understood as part of a recognisable escalation pattern.

I call this “trans eliminationism” – efforts to remove trans people from social, legal or physical existence. The concept of eliminationism was developed by political scientist Daniel Goldhagen to describe ideologies that frame a targeted group as incompatible with society and therefore as requiring removal.

Trans eliminationism exists on a continuum.

At the less severe end, though still deeply harmful, is social and legal erasure such as restricting healthcare access, prohibiting changes to identity documents, removing gender as a protected category, banning trans content from schools and libraries, and pushing trans youth into conversion practices.

Some of these measures are now occurring in many jurisdictions. For example, across the United States, anti-trans bills continue to be introduced in various states and in New Zealand, the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill is currently open for submissions.

Social and legal eliminationism can create conditions in which more severe forms of harm, including incarceration and physical violence, become easier to justify by weakening legal protections, normalising exclusion, and reducing the social and political costs of further restrictions.

For some of the most marginalised trans people, incarceration and violence are already a lived reality. How escalation happens Research on eliminationist movements points to recurring mechanisms through which societies move from foundational prejudice to increasingly severe restrictions and harms.

One is dehumanisation. When a group is portrayed as irrational, defective, immoral or less deserving of dignity, moral inhibitions about harming them are lowered. This makes it easier to justify restrictions on their rights or to dismiss their testimony and experiences.

Another is the artificial construction of a perceived threat. Targeted groups are framed as a danger to children, public safety or social order. This generates the urgency needed for public mobilisation, because measures that would otherwise seem discriminatory can instead be presented as necessary forms of protection.

A third mechanism, specific to trans eliminationism, is what I call biological reductionism.

This involves reducing the complexity of sex and gender to a single biological characteristic and treating it as a person’s essential nature – determining who someone really is, regardless of their lived experience, social role, body or self-understanding.

It is then used to determine how they should be recognised and treated in areas such as healthcare, law, education and sport. Under this logic, trans people become impossible by definition. This is particularly insidious because it makes what is fundamentally a political manoeuvre appear as merely recognising biological reality.

This is the approach taken in a 2025 US executive order that defined sex by reproductive cells and in the bill currently before the New Zealand parliament. Human biology is more complex than this framing allows.

But the deeper problem is the assumption that biology alone should determine legal status or social recognition in the first place. Current policy shifts show a pattern of escalation against trans people. Author provided, CC BY-SA These mechanisms frequently operate together.

Claims based on this biological reductionism are used to cast doubt on trans people’s credibility and self-understanding. This dehumanises trans people and enables artificial threat construction in which trans women are framed as men invading women’s spaces, or trans youth as vulnerable children being manipulated by adults.

Each mechanism strengthens the others, and together they create the conditions under which eliminationist policies appear to be reasonable responses to genuine concerns or danger. Why this matters Historical research shows prejudice can be mobilised by political actors seeking support, power or cultural influence.

Trans people have become symbols of broader social change. For some political movements, opposition to trans rights has become a way of expressing resistance to changing norms of gender, sexuality and individual people’s authority over their own bodies.

We currently use the broad term “anti-trans” to describe very different beliefs, policies and political projects. These beliefs and actions do not all carry the same implications for harm. The concept of trans eliminationism provides language for recognising when political ideas and policy proposals move beyond prejudice and into efforts to reduce or remove trans people’s social, legal or physical existence.

Understanding the mechanisms for escalation helps us recognise how harmful policies are often preceded by changes in the way people talk about a group – shifts in language, assumptions and public narratives that make exclusion or elimination appear reasonable, necessary or even compassionate.

This is why current policies, justified as protective or evidence-based, must instead be understood as part of a documented pattern of eliminationist harm. History shows eliminationist projects generally emerge gradually, becoming normalised one policy, one justification and one compromise at a time.

But history also shows that escalation is not inevitable. Similar trajectories have been interrupted and reversed, including the rollback of criminalisation laws and expansion of legal rights for lesbian and gay people in many jurisdictions.

Those reversals were built on sustained resistance and community leadership.

The same is possible now if harmful patterns are recognised and resisted before they escalate further.

Jaimie Veale receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi as a Rutherford Discovery Fellow.

She is a member of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and the Professional Association of Transgender Health Aotearoa.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/18/from-prejudice-to-harm-current-policies-targeting-trans-people-follow-a-clear-pattern-of-escalation/

Claudio Schwarz/Unsplash Should you marry that person? Quit a steady career to retrain? Move across the country, away from ageing parents? Sit with any of these and watch your mind spin. You weigh what you’d gain against what you’d lose.

You run the numbers. And still no answer arrives. Big decisions do this to us. They are rare, life-shaping, and hard to undo, and they refuse to be solved like a sum. Researchers recently used AI to analyse more than 100,000 real dilemmas posted online.

They found choices pulled in dozens of directions at once, far from the tidy two or three variables we imagine. Big decisions are messier than they look. I study how people make life’s biggest decisions.

In research, I asked more than 600 people to describe their ten biggest decisions. Thousands more have since mapped their own choices in an ongoing study. Marriage, children, career changes, house purchases, and relocations come up again and again.

My study didn’t hand me a checklist you can use when faced with a big decision. But it did show what separates the decisions people are later glad of from those they regretted. Read alongside the wider research, those factors fall into a rough order worth trying.

1. Choose, don’t drift Start by admitting you are deciding. Many of us never quite choose our biggest paths. We move in with a partner to save on rent, sliding into a relationship rather than deciding on one.

We take the job that happened to be offered. We stay in a city because leaving never quite comes up. Bit by bit, life feels less like a choice than a current we floated along.

A decision you never consciously make is one you cannot make well. 2. You’re choosing for a stranger Standard guides tell you to list what you want. But a genuinely big decision is transformative. It changes the very person making the choice.

Parenthood, marriage, or a new career reshape your values, so the “you” on the far side may want different things than the “you” choosing now. So don’t only ask what you want today. Ask who you want to become, and whether the experience itself is one worth having.

And don’t assume the goal is happiness. Some big choices trade comfort for a richer, stranger life, and people choose them anyway. A good life can be interesting rather than easy. 3. Try before you commit Resist the two-option trap: “take it or leave it”.

Instead, run a “vanishing options” test: ask what you’d do if none of your current choices were allowed. New paths will appear – to wait a year, do it part-time first, rent before you buy.

Then, test what you can. No big choice allows a full dress rehearsal: living together isn’t marriage, a weekend with a niece isn’t parenthood. Sample the edges anyway. Take the secondment before you quit.

Spend a month in the new city before the move. A rough taste beats a pure guess. 4. Borrow some hindsight Ask people who know you, and people who have done the same thing you’re considering.

In my data, decisions made with more advice were judged more positively years later. One catch: don’t tell them which way you’re leaning. Reveal your hunch and advisers tend to echo it back rather than test it.

Ask first, share your view later. Other people’s hindsight is the closest thing you have to your own foresight. 5. Some things won’t add up Now, the hard part. You will crave a single score, a spreadsheet that ranks each option.

But the things that matter most share no common currency. How do you convert love into the same units as money? You can’t – and forcing them onto one scale just hides the trade-off you’re trying to discern.

So, stop trying to compute the odds. Instead, build a story. Weighing that move abroad, you can run the years forward – the work, the friendships, the life that might grow there – and choose the version you believe.

When the sums can’t be done, a story is what’s left to act on. 6. When in doubt, leap How do you choose between options that won’t rank? Watch your hesitation. In my data, the decisions people felt sure about were the ones they later judged well.

Confidence may act as a signal that you’ve searched enough – and when it won’t come, more spreadsheets rarely summon it. When you are truly on the fence, the odds favour the braver move.

American economist Steven Levitt had more than 20,000 people flip a coin over choices they were stuck on; those the coin pushed towards change were happier six months later. Staying can be right, but our thumb presses too hard on the status quo.

Research suggests the road we regret longest is usually the one not taken. 7. Commit, then plan to be wrong Make the call, then commit. A good decision is a good process; the outcome is never fully in your hands.

So, build the process. Before you commit, run a “premortem” and a “backcast”. Picture it’s a year on and the choice has failed, and list why. Then, picture it’s gone brilliantly, and list why.

Together they show the risks to guard against and the upside to chase, while you can still act on both. Then set tripwires – the dates or warning signs that trigger a rethink – so a slow drift never hardens into a sunk cost.

The deciding is the point The worst way to make life’s biggest decisions is to not quite make them. To slide into a marriage, a career, a city, then wake years later wondering who chose.

So, choose. Even imperfectly. The deciding is the point.

Adrian R. Camilleri 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/2026/06/18/making-a-big-life-changing-decision-7-steps-to-consider/

Ron Lach/Pexels, CC BY Most people suspect they own too many clothes, but they aren’t sure exactly what the “right amount” is. Recent wardrobe studies, in which researchers literally peek inside peoples’ closets, show the scale of the problem is far greater than most of us imagine.

Sixty years ago, the average person owned about 40 garments. Today, that number has more than quadrupled, with a recent study revealing these numbers continue to trend upwards. The typical wardrobe now contains an average of 199 major pieces.

Even more striking: 25%–50% of these items are languishing in the back of drawers and rails. Our hidden clothing footprint Research tells us this is not just a clutter issue — it’s a carbon one. Every garment carries a sizeable environmental footprint long before it reaches a hanger, including from fibre production, spinning, weaving, dyeing, cutting, sewing, packaging and global transport.

A jacket that ends up as fashion waste is more than a label and price tag. It’s the sum of all the resources and emissions that brought it into being. At the same time, donating excess garments to charities is rarely a solution.

Before you channel your inner Marie Kondo and bag up half your wardrobe, it’s worth knowing that most charities are overwhelmed, and only a small fraction of donated clothing is resold. The rest often ends up in landfill or exported overseas, shifting the problem, rather than solving it.

The real issue isn’t simply how much we buy, but how little we wear what we already own. Wear counts change everything One of the clearest findings emerging from sustainability research is that the environmental impact of a garment often depends on how many times it’s worn.

In a sense, every additional wear helps “offset” the garment’s carbon footprint.

The European Union has calculated the minimum number of wears needed for different clothing types: • shirts and blouses: 40 wears • T shirts: 45 wears • pants, shorts, dresses, skirts, jumpsuits, leggings: 70 wears • jumpers, cardigans, hoodies: 85 wears • jackets and coats: 100 wears.

For many people, these numbers may be far higher than expected – and they shift the sustainability conversation from “buying better” to “wearing more”. The wardrobe equation My own recent research has gone further by offering a simple mathematical model to calculate how long it takes to reach these minimum wear counts.

The formula is straightforward: wearing frequency × wardrobe volume. The results are eye opening. Take dresses. The average participant in the study owned 23. So if they wore a dress once a week, it would take nearly 31 years to wear each one 70 times.

If they wear dresses five times a week, the timeline drops to six and a half years. The maths makes the issue clear: there is no universal “right” number of clothes. A sustainable wardrobe depends entirely on how often a person wears what they own, which is influenced by factors such as seasonality, climate, lifestyle, laundry habits and personal style.

The maths also becomes more complicated when you look at the entire wardrobe, rather than a single garment type. Why a tailored approach is needed Because of this complexity, it’s difficult to declare a fixed number of garments that constitutes a sustainable wardrobe.

As such, the next phase of my project is the development of an interactive wardrobe calculator – a tool designed to help individuals understand their own clothing use patterns and calculate a personalised sustainable wardrobe size.

The Paris 2030 Agreement to stay below 1.5°C of global warming recommends 85 garments or less would be a responsible target – although imposing strict limits does not take individual wearing patterns into account. People need a practical, tailored approach that reflects their real lives.

What the research makes clear is that sustainability isn’t about owning the perfect number of clothes, or purging half your wardrobe.

It’s about understanding the maths behind what you own, how often you wear it, and how those choices shape your environmental impact.

Alicja Kuźmycz 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/2026/06/18/how-much-clothing-is-too-much-the-maths-behind-having-a-sustainable-wardrobe/

COMMENTARY: By Lim Tean

Two days ago, I wrote an article and posted on FaceBook describing the US-Iran ceasefire as a surrender document. That article has since been viewed more than 4.5 million times, liked 56,000 times, and shared more than 11,000 times.
The response confirmed what many already sensed but could not yet prove: that something was deeply wrong with the terms America had accepted.
Now, with the full text of the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding obtained by Al Arabiya English, we no longer have to speculate. The document speaks for itself — and it confirms everything I said.

READ MORE: Trump, Pezeshkian sign US-Iran MoU to end war, both sides confirm
Other War on Iran reports

As a lawyer, I have spent a 35 year career parsing legal language with precision. Reading this MOU, my conclusion is unequivocal: this is not a peace agreement between equals.
This is a surrender document. The Americans did not want the world to see this text, and reading it, it is not difficult to understand why.
I will now explain in detail why that is so. Let me set out all 14 clauses in full, and then explain what they mean.
The 14 clauses of the Iran MOU:

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual h a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.
Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States will lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.
Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralisation of mines by Iran.
The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.
The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral US sanctions, both primary and secondary.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear programme, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.
The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.
The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement.
Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.
The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

Why this is a surrender document — and worse than Obama’s JCPOA:
Reading this MOU as a lawyer, the conclusion is clear beyond peradventure. Let me explain why, point by devastating point:
First: The $300 billion.
Clause 6 commits the United States and its regional partners to finance Iran’s rehabilitation and economic development to the tune of at least $300 billion. Let us call this what it is — reparations. The victor does not pay the defeated party $300 billion. The party that initiated a war, prosecuted it, and lost pays the winner. The Obama JCPOA involved releasing approximately $100–150 billion in frozen Iranian assets — money that was already Iran’s. This MOU commits the United States to generating $300 billion in fresh financing for Iranian development. Trump went to war and came back owing Iran more than twice what Obama ever conceded.
Second: The Strait of Hormuz remains in Iranian hands.
Clause 5 requires Iran to clear its own mines and restore shipping — a technical concession that actually confirms something extraordinary: Iran controls the waterway. The MOU contains not a single provision preventing Iran from later imposing transit fees, “environmental levies,” or “navigational service charges” on vessels passing through. It is tolls under a different name. The Strait of Hormuz, the jugular vein of global energy supply, remains firmly within Iran’s sovereign grip. The United States went to war and lost the Strait, which had been open to the world before then.
Third: The nuclear question is left wide open — and Trump’s bombast about Iran’s enriched uranium is flatly contradicted by the text.
This is perhaps the most legally significant point of all. Clause 8 states that Iran “reiterates” it will never produce nuclear weapons. The word “reiterates” is not accidental — it is a diplomatic term of art meaning Iran is simply repeating a prior position, not making a fresh, legally binding, verifiable commitment. There is no dismantlement of centrifuges. No reduction in enrichment levels. No breakout timeline. No snap inspections. The fate of enriched material is merely deferred to the final agreement. Compare this to the JCPOA, which at least imposed specific caps on enrichment, reduced Iran’s stockpile by 98 percent, limited centrifuges, and established a 15-year timeline with IAEA verification. This MOU gives America nothing comparable.
Trump has boasted publicly that under this deal, America will be able to seize and destroy Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. This is pure fantasy. Read Clause 8 again: the fate of enriched material is to be “adequately addressed in a final agreement”. That is all. There is no mechanism for seizure, no timeline for removal, no verification procedure, and no enforcement clause. The enriched uranium remains in Iran’s possession, on Iranian soil, under Iranian control — today, tomorrow, and until such time as a final agreement is reached, if one ever is. Indeed, Clause 8 explicitly acknowledges “Iran’s nuclear needs,” a formulation that implicitly recognises Iran’s right to continue developing its nuclear programme as it sees fit. Far from constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions, this MOU hands Iran enormous residual power over the direction and pace of its own nuclear development. The deal does not strip Iran of its nuclear leverage — it leaves that leverage entirely intact while America pays the bills.
I make no judgment on whether Iran should or should not possess nuclear weapons — my longstanding view has always been that if Iran is not to have them, Israel, which possesses an undeclared arsenal, should not have them either.
But the point is this: it is pure hyperbole for Trump to claim that under this deal Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. The MOU does not prevent it. And given that the Iranian President Pezeskian, in a recent call with the Pakistani Prime Minister, reportedly threatened to detonate a nuclear device if America remained intransigent — and given that Pakistan has given assurances to Turkey of nuclear cover in the event of an Israeli threat — who is to say a similar assurance will not be extended to Iran by Pakistan, China, Russia, or North Korea? The MOU provides no answer.
Fourth: The sequencing reveals everything.
Clause 13 is perhaps the most telling of all. It provides that Iran and the United States will enter final agreement negotiations only after America has commenced implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 — meaning the naval blockade is lifted, frozen assets are released, oil export waivers are issued, and shipping is restored — all before a final deal is concluded. America gives first. Iran negotiates later. This is the logic not of a victor extracting concessions, but of a supplicant purchasing the right to sit at the table.
The bottom line
Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, deployed carrier battle groups, imposed a naval blockade, and subjected Iranian infrastructure to sustained bombardment. He did so with maximalist rhetoric about preventing Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons and forcing Iran’s unconditional surrender. The MOU he has now signed delivers: a $300 billion development commitment, no structural nuclear dismantlement, Iranian retention of effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, immediate American concessions before final negotiations even begin, and a nuclear clause so weak that the word “reiterates” does all the work of what should have been a cast-iron prohibition.
Obama’s JCPOA, whatever its imperfections, at least contained specific, measurable nuclear rollbacks, independent verification mechanisms, and phased sanction relief tied to verified Iranian compliance. This MOU contains none of that structural architecture.
Trump tore up the JCPOA calling it the worst deal in history. He then went to war. And he came home with something worse.
And here is a modest suggestion for the occasion. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles — a document that imposed such punishing reparations and national humiliation on Germany that it gave rise to Adolf Hitler and delivered the world into the catastrophe of the Second World War.
President Macron is now set to dine President Trump in that same Hall of Mirrors during the G7 summit. How fitting it would be — how perfectly, poetically fitting — if Trump were to stay on and sign the final MOU with Iran on June 19 in that very same Hall. After all, a room that once witnessed one great power reduce another to humiliating reparations is precisely the right setting for a document in which the self-proclaimed world’s greatest dealmaker has somehow managed to be the one paying them.
The mirrors — 357 in total, at least, would reflect the moment with perfect clarity.
Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/trump-went-to-war-against-iran-and-got-a-deal-far-worse-than-obama/

Miragest/Getty Energy security is a top priority globally, as governments grapple with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, an accelerating clean energy transition and surging power demand from AI data centres. The problem is especially acute for Asia and the Pacific, as both regions are highly dependent on imported fuels.

This is where Australia could step up as a regional energy superpower, rich in both renewables and fossil fuels. Australia could form a new energy security alliance to stabilise regional markets for the long-term. In the short term, this would mean guaranteeing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

In the longer term, green exports such as renewable fuels and battery minerals could form the bedrock of Australia’s energy relationship with Asia. Energy insecurity is rife across Asia The war between the United States-Israel and Iran triggered a major disruption to fossil fuel supplies.

After Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, Asia lost 80% of its oil supply and 27% of its natural gas supply. Flow-on impacts to Pacific nations were significant, as these island nations rely heavily on diesel and food imports.

The deal to end the Iran war doesn’t mean an end to these challenges. This year has shown the risks of relying on Middle Eastern oil and gas producers in a conflict-prone region. Asia-Pacific governments are looking for reliable partners to ensure energy security.

The world’s top two powers, the United States and China, are jostling to expand their energy exports in the region but in very different ways. China’s response to the Iran conflict has been to double down on electrification and build its reserves of oil.

Beijing is also aggressively expanding its exports of electric vehicles, solar panels, batteries and other green tech exports to root out any overseas competition. Meanwhile, the US is pursuing a strategy of “energy dominance”, focused on producing abundant supplies of oil and gas domestically.

Washington believes this will deliver affordable energy, win the AI race against China with cheap power and expand energy exports to bind allies closer. China has cornered the market in many clean tech exports. koiguo/Getty Time for a decisive strategy Without a clear strategy for energy exports, Australia risks becoming a passive spectator.

The risks are twofold. Our role as a coal and LNG exporter could erode as Asian countries look elsewhere to fill their supply gap and we could miss the window of opportunity to grow our clean energy exports.

What should this strategy look like? In practice, it would involve working with allies like the United States and Japan to build a regional energy security alliance. This would focus on meeting the region’s immediate energy needs and enable Australia to play a central role in the region’s transition to clean energy.

The Quad members’ recent joint statement is a strong start. Any such alliance cannot simply focus on securing fossil fuel supply to the region. The shift to clean energy transition must be factored into its design.

Ideally, this alliance should cover the full energy supply chain. That means critical minerals, natural gas, diesel, hydrogen, batteries, data centres and even emerging products such as low-carbon fertilisers. Australia is poised to take the lead Australia is the only reliable high-volume LNG exporter in the Asia-Pacific.

Key competitors face challenges meeting the region’s needs.

Russian gas is heavily sanctioned, Qatari exports have been held hostage in the Strait of Hormuz and US gas export terminals are concentrated on the Gulf Coast, adding 10 extra days in transit to reach Asia compared to shipments from Darwin.

Australia also has some of the greatest clean energy resources in the world, including critical minerals vital to batteries and renewables. The United States and Canada would also play a role as major LNG and oil producers.

Japan would provide the financing and shipping infrastructure that many smaller Southeast Asian nations cannot. The United States and Japan could also help produce the EVs, batteries and clean tech to drive the region’s transition.

Despite the Trump administration’s unfavourable views on wind and solar, US battery manufacturing is forecast to increase five-fold. An alliance like this would give certainty to Indo-Pacific countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and India that Australia and its allies would not prematurely turn off fossil fuel supply.

This is pragmatic. While Australia is aiming for net zero by 2050, many Asian countries are aiming for 2060 or 2070. They may require fossil fuel supply beyond 2050 – would we rather that supply to come from Australia or Russia?

What needs to happen? Shifting energy policies and sluggish approval timeframes have left Australia close to a gas shortfall in southern states, slowed the renewable transition and contributed to higher energy costs. These domestic challenges must be balanced with the region’s current need for Australian energy exports.

The Iran war has shown the world is not yet ready to wean itself off fossil fuels. Despite very rapid shifts to renewables and clean transport, there are years ahead where gas and oil will remain vital.

As the region’s most reliable LNG exporter, Australia is well placed to cement its position in the Indo-Pacific’s energy landscape long-term as green exports ramp up.

Grabbing this opportunity requires a cohesive strategy, partnering with like-minded allies and fixing domestic challenges.

Robert Monterosso 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/2026/06/17/how-australia-can-deliver-the-secure-gas-renewable-fuels-and-battery-minerals-asia-and-the-pacific-need/