Whales and dolphins inhabit some of the largest and seemingly most pristine environments on Earth, from tropical coastlines to Antarctic waters. Yet even they cannot escape PFAS – persistent “forever chemicals” that leak from our homes, factories and waterways into the sea.

Forever chemicals are the secret ingredients in our non-stick pans, waterproof jackets and stain-resistant carpets. These chemicals belong to a group of more than 1,400 compounds known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They enter the environment through manufacturing waste, industrial runoff, wastewater treatment plants and firefighting foams.

But once these chemicals escape our homes and factories, they become almost impossible to get rid of. Washed into waterways, they make their way to the sea. Small organisms absorb them from the water, fish eat those organisms and larger predators eat the fish.

At each step, the chemical load increases. As top predators, whales and dolphins can end up with very high levels in their bodies. Not even deep-diving species living and feeding far from humans are safe.

In our new research, we found PFAS concentrations in cetaceans have increased globally since 2000. Animals in the Pacific Ocean were the most contaminated, with humpback dolphins showing the highest PFAS concentrations. These mammals are sentinels of ocean health.

They sit high in the food web, live for many years and are exposed to pollution across large areas of the ocean. When whales and dolphins show signs of chemical exposure, it tells us something is wrong in the wider marine ecosystem.

Forever chemicals move through the food web and end up in the bodies of high-level predators such as dolphins. Dmitry Miroshnikov/Getty Why are we worried about forever chemicals? Many of these chemicals have been in use for decades.

Their sheer durability and ability to resist heat, oil and water make them very useful. Scientists have grown increasingly concerned about them because they persist for decades and build up over time in our own bodies, as well as in wildlife and the broader environment.

The key concern is what these chemicals may be doing to the animals that accumulate them. Research in humans and laboratory animals links PFAS to immune suppression, hormonal changes, reproductive problems and developmental effects. But we don’t yet have enough research to understand how different PFAS compounds and levels of exposure affect health.

Understanding these impacts in whales and dolphins is harder still. Marine mammals are long-lived, highly mobile and exposed to many human-made problems at once, from climate change to noise pollution to other contaminants. Even so, there are warning signs.

Some dolphin studies have reported changes in immune-related markers associated with PFAS exposure. How do you test a whale for forever chemicals? For humans, testing PFAS levels is usually done with a blood test. It is not as simple for whales and dolphins.

It is extremely difficult to take blood samples from large marine mammals in the wild. Scientists often rely on tissue samples from dead animals, particularly from the liver and kidney where many PFAS compounds tend to accumulate.

These samples are analysed in specialised laboratories capable of detecting tiny concentrations of individual PFAS compounds. This way, scientists have been measuring PFAS in whales and dolphins for decades. Each study added another piece to the puzzle, showing these chemicals were present in different species, populations and oceans.

Our study took a step back and looked at the global picture. We compiled PFAS data from cetaceans worldwide, focusing on liver samples because they are the most commonly available tissue type, allowing us to compare studies across species and regions.

What did we find? We found PFAS contamination differed substantially across species, location, sex, age and time. Infographic showing the main findings of the study. CC BY The highest concentrations tended to be found in coastal dolphins and porpoises, suggesting animals living near urban and industrial areas face greater exposure.

Cetaceans in the Pacific had higher levels than other oceans. This is likely due to high industrial activity and the extent of historical PFAS production in coastal regions. Female whales and dolphins can transfer forever chemicals during pregnancy and nursing.

This means their calves can be exposed to concerning levels of PFAS at a very early age. Males often end up with higher levels than females overall, as they cannot transfer these chemicals to their young.

There are some large gaps in the global dataset we collated, which means we don’t fully know the extent of PFAS contamination in cetaceans off India, Indonesia and parts of Africa. Female whales and dolphins can transfer forever chemicals to their calves.

Kerstin Meyer/Getty What should we do? While important questions remain about the effects of forever chemicals on whales and dolphins, the widespread contamination we observed is a real concern. We need to continue monitoring while strengthening regulations and working to reduce PFAS flows into the environment.

History shows global action on harmful chemicals works. After it became clear Earth’s protective ozone layer was being eaten away, nations agreed to phase out the chemicals responsible. The ozone layer is now recovering.

The European Union moved to ban some PFAS compounds 20 years ago. Our study found lower levels of some legacy PFAS compounds in the Mediterranean Sea, a pattern that may reflect the effects of regulation. This is positive, but not sufficient given overall PFAS levels in whales and dolphins have increased globally over time.

The EU is now moving to better regulate this class of forever chemicals. Forever chemicals are one of the defining pollution challenges of our time. The more we understand how these chemicals accumulate in whales and dolphins, the better equipped we will be to reduce future contamination and protect marine ecosystems.

What ends up in the ocean does not simply disappear. And neither do PFAS.

This article is based on collaborative research that also included Lavinia Stokes (University of Wollongong), Jesuina de Araujo (National Measurement Institute) and Gavin Stevenson (National Measurement Institute).

Frédérik Saltré receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Karen Stockin and Katharina J.

Peters 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/2026/06/17/levels-of-forever-chemicals-in-dolphins-and-whales-are-rising-globally/

Marches, Mozambicans murdered, state-sponsored evacuations, a nationally televised presidential address. Anti-immigrant mobilisation has again drawn the world’s attention to South Africa. The continental backlash threatens tourism, trade, diplomacy and investment opportunities in Africa’s largest economy, and is derailing its constitutional democracy.

Many citizens demand the country restore its sovereignty – the state’s ability to govern itself and determine its own laws within its borders – by tightening border controls. Parties promise to deliver walls, raids and deportations.

What these popular debates over sovereignty and border control overlook is that politics is not defined on the borders. It comes from control over resources and production. In South Africa’s past, this was mines.

Now it is cities, townships, and the infrastructure that connects them. This is where the country’s political future is being forged. This is where sovereignty is being lost. And the state is helping to make this happen.

Over the past 20 years, we have investigated the politics of migration and xenophobia in South Africa. Together we founded Xenowatch and the Mobility Governance Lab to document incidents of xenophobic discrimination and evaluate strategies to promote secure mobility and social cohesion.

In a paper published in 2022 we argued that xenophobic mobilisation in South Africa was not merely a grassroots phenomenon by frustrated communities. Nor is it the result of a “third force” or external actors out to embarrass the country.

Rather, we argue, it is a political enterprise co-produced by vigilante groups and the state through acts of commission and omission. These include failing to censure those who exclude through violence and other forms of illegal conduct.

It also includes migration policies and practices that demonise those from other countries. This has resulted in the state consistently legitimising and rewarding the criminal conduct of vigilante groups.

Read more: Anti-foreigner violence in South Africa is easily sparked: what hasn’t been done to deal with it Our research shows that xenophobic discrimination has become a feature of post-apartheid South Africa’s socio-political landscape.

We argue that the only interventions capable of disrupting xenophobic mobilisation are those that lower, or ideally eliminate, its political, economic and social benefits.

This must include holding people accountable for their actions, consistent and impartial application of the law to address both illegal migration and criminal vigilante exclusion of migrants, and joint efforts by the state and civil society to counter anti-migrant mobilisation.

On the ground Our investigations show that in townships, “community development” associations run protection rackets determining who can live, build, or conduct business in their “communities”. They work in collaboration with local police to remove unwanted people.

Elected leaders often look away or embrace them to win votes. This is not about enforcing law or creating opportunities for all. It is not about immigration control. It is about using social division to extract resources and build power.

There is often strong local support for these measures and those leading them. However, they are illegal and institutionalise state complicity in extractive violence that weakens, rather than enforces, the rule of law.

Read more: South Africa’s anti-migrant campaigns use the language of democracy: why that’s dangerous From mid-2025, Operation Dudula – an anti-immigrant social movement that has now registered as a political party – and March and March – a self-described “grassroots” civic organisation focused on illegal immigration – systematically blockaded public health facilities, denying migrants access to at least 53 clinics across KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Gauteng provinces.

The South African Human Rights Commission found that despite engagement with the Department of Health and the National Commissioner of Police (both of which committed to intervening) vigilante conduct continued. In some instances the police refused to take statements from victims.

Despite court rulings interdicting Operation Dudula, the unlawful operations continued across the country. Without state enforcement, court orders are only paper. Rather than being sanctioned, March and March confirmed that it had an agreement with the SAPS (South African Police Service) and Metro Police, which don’t interfere with them.

A co-authored political enterprise Between 2022 and 2025, Xenowatch recorded 406 verified incidents resulting in 75 deaths. This translates into an average of 102 xenophobic discrimination incidents per year. In 2025 alone, 151 incidents were recorded. In the first five months of 2026, a further 22 verified incidents were recorded.

Of the 22 incidents, 14 were violent attacks that largely followed anti-migrant protests in some parts of the country. Read more: South Africans are far less tolerant of migrants than before – hotspots, drivers and solutions The recent attacks resulted in at least four people dead and hundreds displaced.

Despite this, officials regularly argue this is “normal” criminality. In 2008, 2010, and again in 2026, there have been accusations of a third force determined to undermine the country’s successes or punish it for its positions on Israel and Russia.

Rather than intervene effectively, the government has addressed the rise of these political formations with a National Action Plan on Racism and Xenophobia. It contains almost no plan. Rather than marshal state resources against the anti-immigrant campaigns, it focuses on education and public events intended to foster goodwill and social cohesion.

Debates and dialogues are welcome. But they do little to erode the power of gangsters and criminal networks. When the state has acted, it helps reinforce precisely the kind of political fragmentation and profit taking it purports to prevent.

Its largest police operation to protect foreigners – Operation Fiela – resulted in police demanding additional bribes from migrants, a loss of economic activity and tax revenue, and only a small reduction in immigrant numbers. All this was done in the name of restoring citizens’ faith in the immigration system.

There were winners: not immigrants or citizens, but law enforcers who line their pockets and boost their operational budgets. Read more: South Africa has a plan to fight prejudice. But it’s full of holes A recent meeting convened at the official seat of government, the Union Buildings, provides another example.

On 25 May 2026, senior government ministers convened a high-level meeting with the leadership of March and March and other organisations “to address illegal immigration and the rise in anti-immigration protests in the country”. In our view, granting groups like this access to the highest political office lends them legitimacy and gives them a place in the South African political system.

Their words are broadcast on national television and radio stations. Their ultimatums come to represent legitimate political demands. The state may temporarily quell crises. But it emboldens these groups to carry on. The results are a politics of fragmentation and self-made laws.

What needs to be done Protecting South Africa’s constitutional democracy requires three things done simultaneously. First, genuine accountability for perpetrators: not symbolic arrests, but prosecutions that result in meaningful consequences for instigators and perpetrators.

Second, consistent and impartial enforcement of the rule of law to address both illegal migration and criminal vigilante exclusion of migrants. Third, the building of political will and muscle by the state and civil society, to hold politicians accountable when their rhetoric or conduct emboldens exclusionary violence and practices.

This is not an issue of migration management and border control. It is one of sovereignty and law. Civil society organisations are already pursuing litigation and winning cases in court. But court orders flouted with impunity are not victories; they are further evidence of the problem.

Without the political muscle to hold the state accountable for its complicity, the co-creation of exclusion will continue.

Loren B Landau receives funding from South Africa’s National Research Foundation. The Open Society Foundation and Freedom House has also supported research on which this article is based.

Jean Pierre Misago has received funding from the Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and Porticus.

The funding supported research on which this article is based.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/xenophobia-in-south-africa-states-complicity-with-gangs-and-vigilantes-is-threatening-its-ability-to-govern/

Marnie Griffiths/Getty After months of anticipation, the Bureau of Meteorology officially declared an El Niño on June 16. El Niño is a naturally occurring variation in temperature and winds across the Pacific Ocean that can influence weather around the globe.

During El Niño, sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific warm up and trade winds – which typically blow from east to west along the equator – weaken. As a result, a region of strong storm activity known as the Walker Circulation shifts east over the Pacific Ocean, drawing moisture and clouds away from Australia.

Past El Niño events have coincided with some of the driest and hottest weather in Australian history. Making El Niño official El Niño events occur about every three to seven years, and can last anywhere from six months to two years.

They typically ramp up in winter and spring, before easing in autumn. The likelihood of El Niño has been in the news for months, but the Bureau of Meteorology only just officially declared it active.

That’s because there is a specific set of criteria that must be met.

Scientists must observe at least three of the following: Sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean must be greater than 0.8°C above average The trade winds that blow east to west across the Pacific have to be weaker than average for the past four months The Southern Oscillation Index, which measures the difference in atmospheric pressure between Tahiti and Darwin, must be lower than -7.

This tells us whether the region of strong storm activity is closer to Darwin or Tahiti The majority of global seasonal forecasting models must predict that ocean temperatures in the Pacific will stay warm for at least three months.

Read more: What does El Niño do to the weather in your state? What does this mean for Australia? Importantly, an El Niño declaration is not a forecast. Rather, it’s a statement on the current conditions in the Pacific Ocean.

On average, past El Niño events were associated with warmer than normal maximum temperatures across Australia, particularly in winter and spring. They were also linked to drier than average winter and spring conditions, especially in eastern Australia.

Western Australia is not as affected by El Niño because, particularly compared to eastern states, it’s only indirectly influenced by Pacific Ocean conditions. The north of the country, however, tends to experience fewer tropical cyclones on average and a delayed start to the monsoon season during El Niño.

It may seem counterintuitive, but El Niño can lead to colder minimum temperatures and therefore more frost. This is because we tend to see less cloud cover during El Niño, and nighttime clouds act like a blanket that stops heat from escaping to space.

However, global average temperatures tend to be hotter during El Niño. And we often see record breaking years coinciding with El Niño. It’s worth noting, human-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of rising global average temperatures.

However, El Niño can tip these temperatures to record breaking levels. Read more: Why are so many climate records breaking all at once? Why are people talking about a ‘super El Niño’? You may have seen reports of a potential “Super El Niño”.

A “super” or “strong” El Niño refers to events where the sea surface temperatures in the Central Pacific Ocean are about 2°C warmer than normal. As of June 14, the sea surface temperatures in this region were 0.92°C above average.

However, forecasting models suggest temperatures could exceed the 2°C threshold by late winter. However, a “super El Niño” will not necessarily lead to “super droughts” or “super bushfires”. That’s because, in Australia, the strength of an El Niño event is not related to the severity of its impacts.

The 2002 El Niño event was weak, but was still associated with widespread drought and severe bushfires in some parts of Australia. In contrast, the strong El Niño of 2015 affected rainfall patterns differently across the country.

Read more: Why the phrase ‘Super El Niño’ makes Australian climate scientists roll their eyes El Niño is not the whole story El Niño is just one ingredient in the recipe of Australian weather.

Our weather is influenced by El Niño in the Pacific Ocean as well as the Indian Ocean Dipole, sometimes known as El Niño’s cousin to the west. Australia’s weather is also shaped by shifts in the jet stream to the south – which impacts how many cold fronts reach Australia – and tropical storms in the north.

Now that El Niño has been declared, scientists will keep a close eye on what happens in the Indian Ocean. If waters off Australia’s northwest cool over winter, the rest of the year may be quite dry.

But if the waters off northwest Australia get warmer, it’s less likely a drought will develop. In short, many factors must coincide to cause severe droughts and bushfires in Australia. Currently, this is not happening.

So the Bureau’s long-range forecast – which considers all these factors as well as El Niño – offers the most accurate information about Australia’s ever-changing weather.

Kimberley Reid receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/the-weather-bureau-has-just-declared-an-el-nino-what-could-this-mean-for-australia/

Othman Alghanmi / Unsplash Last Friday, US-based artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic received an “export control” directive from its government. The company was told it must block access to two of its most capable models, Fable and Mythos, for all foreign nationals.

Within hours, Anthropic shut down access to the models for users everywhere in the world, including researchers, clinicians and analysts in Australia. This happened with no warning and no backup plan. Why did this happen?

The directive’s “foreign national” criterion is a citizenship concept. However, Anthropic and other cloud-based AI providers only know the location of their users, not their citizenship. Consumer AI services have no effective mechanism to verify citizenship.

Even their location filters can be dodged with tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs). There is no way any control of these services based on user nationality can be enforced. A system that blocks a foreign national in the United States but allows access to a US national in Australia, for example, is not currently available.

The US government directive was a geopolitical signal – an indication rather than an enforceable control. The only way Anthropic could comply was to shut down access for people everywhere. A question of sovereignty Australian universities, government agencies, health systems and industry have integrated US-hosted frontier AI deeply into their operations.

Advanced analytics platforms, AI-assisted research tools, and productivity infrastructure built on top of models such as Claude or GPT-5 operate with an implicit assumption: that access will persist. The same is true of ubiquitous systems such as Microsoft Teams or Google Workspace, but as we are seeing the assumption may not hold for AI.

The Anthropic shutdown was a reminder that access and control sat entirely within US jurisdiction, regardless of where any Australian user happened to be. It represents a failure of data and technology sovereignty: our ability to operate without permission from other nations.

Australia’s exposure The Anthropic shutdown is the first legally enforceable export control targeting a software-level AI system. It will not be the last. Any frontier AI model hosted in the US, by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind or Meta, is subject to US export control law.

The precedent set this week extends to all of them.

There is some debate about whether an export control only applies to physical exports and not remote access to models housed in the US, and some experts have suggested the order may be challenged on those grounds.

If that were to happen, we would expect the US government to change the regulations. The US government has previously used technology export controls as a geopolitical instrument, particularly in the case of chips and semiconductors.

Even US allies such as Australia are not exempt from these controls. The Anthropic order should have come as no surprise. Voices in Australia’s own research community including Jon Whittle, former head of CSIRO Data61, had been publicly warning about exactly this scenario for more than a year.

To prepare for the future, Australia needs a strategy for its own sovereign AI. This can’t be a distant aspiration: it needs to be an operational plan with named owners, timelines and budget. How does Australia achieve AI sovereignty?

A true sovereign AI strategy requires four things. First is data sovereignty: data that is physically stored in Australia and subject to Australian law. Second is compute sovereignty: in-country data centres under Australian control. Third, AI model sovereignty: AI capability that is not dependent on a foreign provider.

And finally, policy sovereignty: the ability to set its own rules, rather than inheriting another country’s export controls or safety regulations by default. Australia already has some examples of sovereign data and compute, such as Macquarie Government, Vault Cloud and AUCyber.

Building this capacity will require huge, sovereign data centres on Australian soil.

However, that build-out will only garner public support if it comes with binding commitments on renewable energy sourcing, water-efficient cooling, and transparent community consultation in regions where data centres are proposed (such as Bundey in South Australia).

For Australian residents, this sovereignty means not depending on AI tools and systems that another nation can switch off, restrict or alter at will. Developing sovereign AI models will be a challenge. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean building new systems from scratch.

Switzerland’s Apertus model, released in September 2025, is an excellent example of what open-source approaches can produce. It also shows how large language models can be made to comply with regulations such as the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act.

Beyond this, sovereign capability will also require training future experts. We can expect increased demand for people who can build the technology, deploy and manage it, govern it, and integrate it into existing systems. The regulatory dimension The EU is developing AI policy frameworks from which Australia can learn.

It is establishing reciprocal access rights with technology partners and doing institutional contingency planning – and putting money into the process. Several European countries are moving rapidly. France has just announced a further €655 million (A$1 billion) going into national AI capabilities, explicitly referencing last week’s events.

This builds on roughly €2.5 billion of investment since 2018. Sovereign AI does not mean reinventing the frontier model from scratch. It can mean public, transparent, nationally governed infrastructure built on open foundations. At a minimum, AI sovereignty requires making sure we are not too dependent on single AI suppliers or even suppliers based in a single jurisdiction.

The goal should be that no single government or jurisdiction can unilaterally cut off Australian residents and institutions.

Dimitri Perrin has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC), the Australian-French Association for Innovation and Research (AFRAN), and the Advance Queensland programme.

Bernadette Hyland-Wood and Michael Guihot 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/2026/06/17/the-us-government-can-shut-off-access-to-ai-at-will-what-does-this-mean-for-australia/

Pavel Danilyuk/Pexels The federal government has announced another A$3.6 billion to boost childcare workers’ pay. The government says combined with other changes to the minimum wage, this will mean about $255 more per week for a typical full-time educator, compared to December 2024.

The $3.6 billion continues a 15% pay rise for early childhood educators, introduced in late 2024 but due to run out at the end of 2026. The government’s renewed commitment will see educators’ pay continue at the new, increased level over the next two years.

These new funds were not part of the May budget. But the childcare union has been pushing for a renewed commitment around pay and was planning to strike over the matter. So this is a significant announcement for educators and the sector.

But is anything missing? What happened two years ago? In 2024, the Albanese government announced it would fund a 15% pay rise for childcare workers over the next two years, with the condition their employers limited fee increases.

This was to prevent the cost of educator pay rises being passed on to families through higher fees. At the time, it was described as an “interim retention payment” and followed the Productivity Commission noting better wages and conditions were a key way to address staff shortages in the sector.

The commission also noted government support for wage increases could help reduce closures and enable services to redirect funds to other measures that also support quality. It also came as the Fair Work Commission investigated the historic undervaluation of work in female-dominated industries, including early childhood education.

In December 2025, the commission made changes to the children’s services award, including a boost to the minimum pay rates. This has taken longer than initially expected and will now be done in stages between May 2026 and June 2029.

It is understood this will eventually mean services take on responsibility for paying educators at increased rates, rather than the government. What is happening now? As with the last payment, this funding boost is contingent on centres not raising their fees above a certain level.

But there are also some changes. Services will now also have to meet national childcare safety standards as a condition of the payment. The payment will also apply to educators in family daycare and in-home care situations, as well as long daycare centres.

What does this mean? This is a significant development for early childhood education and follows months of uncertainty around educator pay and how it would be funded. It’s a strong signal the federal government recognises the workforce is undervalued and underpaid.

It is also positive this will minimise educators’ needs being pitted against family budgets — which is always a risk when educator wages are only funded via parent fee increases. And it’s important the government is now linking this funding to the national quality ratings for early education services.

This acknowledges the community’s serious concerns about safety in childcare. And is another way to try and boost the quality of care and education during this crucial period of children’s development. This is on top of measures such as staff safety training and bans on educator-use of personal devices at work.

At a broader level, this funded wage increase will also help make services safer for children, and promote quality more generally. This is because it helps to keep qualified educators in the sector, can reduce educator stress and help services attract and retain educators.

All of this helps with staff-to-child ratios and continuity of educator-child relationships. Research shows these are fundamental to children’s safety and quality of education. But what is missing? Of course, it’s welcome the payment is being extended.

But is it still kicking the can down the road?

On Wednesday, in a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, a journalist asked: “will this be the last round of this particular payment?” Education Minister Jason Clare responded: “We’ll look at that question as we build the early education system over the next few years”.

This means we don’t have clarity over the future. There is a legitimate assumption services could end up footing the bill, as pay increases under new minimum wage provisions for early childhood educators roll out.

But if services are forced to limit their fee increases for the time being, this means they won’t be able to incrementally increase fees, to ease into the changes the Fair Work Commission has set out by mid-2029.

So it could become a really tricky situation. At the moment preschools (also known as kinders) are also not covered by this funding. This is a significant gap, as we know these services are crucial in preparing children for school.

They are also more likely to provide higher quality care and education than long daycares. We also know pay is of course crucial, but is not the only thing that matters to early educators. Or the only factor that keeps them in their jobs.

Research – including my own – shows workloads, community respect, and the way educators are treated by managers are continuing concerns across the sector.

They are also key factors that could support long-term workforce quality and stability in early education and care.

Erin Harper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/childcare-workers-have-been-guaranteed-a-pay-bump-whats-the-fine-print/

By Keiller MacDuff of RNZ

Police have paid $10,000 to veteran activist John Minto after he was unlawfully arrested and pepper-sprayed at a pro-Palestinian protest in Christchurch in 2024.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) last year found Minto’s arrest was unlawful and an officer used excessive and unjustified force.
The payout follows negotiations between police and Minto following the authority’s findings.

READ MORE: Other pro-Palestine protest reports

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) national organiser Minto, then 70, was charged with obstructing and resisting police during a protest in Lyttelton on Waitangi Day 2024. Charges were later dropped.
Minto said he would donate the money to the group.
He said he was concerned police still disputed the authority’s findings.
A police investigation concluded the officer’s actions were lawful, but he had failed in his duty to provide aftercare after pepper-spraying Minto.
“I’m pleased this issue is now resolved but disturbed that even after the IPCA report, the police have not accepted responsibility for what in this instance was thuggish behaviour,” Minto said.
Writing to minister
He would write to Police Minister Mark Mitchell calling for law changes to make IPCA findings legally binding on police.
IPCA chair Judge Kenneth Johnston KC wrote to Minto last year and said the authority had found inconsistencies between the arresting officer’s account and video footage, which led the authority to “doubt the genuineness” of the officer’s version.
The authority did not accept the police explanation that Minto had moved from where he was standing or that the officer could have perceived Minto as a real threat.
Johnston said the authority considered the possibility of police charging the officer with assault, but could not rule out self-defence. Instead, the authority asked police to consider an employment process for the officer involved. Police declined to do so.
Minto was pepper-sprayed as police arrested another protester. Half an hour later he was himself arrested ostensibly for obstructing the earlier arrest.
The IPCA found there was no case for the obstruction charge and no grounds to suspect Minto had hindered the arrest of the other protester, “or indeed showed any intention of doing so”.
‘Standing lawfully’
“Our view is that you were standing lawfully on the footpath both prior and during the other protester’s arrest. The evidence does not show you advancing past where you were originally standing after being pushed by the officer who pepper sprayed you, and that you were not paying any attention to the arrest.”
Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Tony Hill said, at the time of the authority’s findings, that police were satisfied there were no employment or criminal matters to address.
“It is important to note that the officer involved was one of a group of other officers dealing with policing a large group of people, in a heightened and dynamic environment,” he said.
Police have been approached for comment on the payment to Minto.

This story was first published on

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/veteran-activist-john-minto-gets-10000-from-nz-police-after-unlawful-pro-palestine-arrest/

When many of us think about drug overdose, we picture young people at a music festival or people dependent on street heroin. But the latest figures from the Penington Institute show older Australians are increasingly dying from overdoses.

On average, seven people died every day from a drug-related overdose. Unintentional drug overdoses make up more than 80% of those deaths. For the first time in a decade, this year’s report showed people aged 50–59 years made up the highest proportion of unintentional deaths (25.5%).

People 40–49 years old are a close second (25.4%). Those aged 50-59 years also had the second-highest intentional drug-related deaths (19.9%) after people in their 70s (22%). So why are overdoses increasing in this age group? Are over-50s simply using more drugs or is something else going on?

What illicit drugs do older people use? Illicit drug use is more common among younger adults than older Australians. Use peaks in people’s 20s then tends to decline with age. People who are now in their 40s and 50s came of age during the 1980s and 1990s, when Australia had relatively high levels of heroin, amphetamine and cannabis use.

While many people reduced or stopped using drugs as they aged, a smaller group continued to use over the course of their lives, contributing to an ageing cohort of people who use drugs. But the gap between younger and older people using illicit drugs has narrowed over time.

Rates among younger people have remained relatively stable, and in some cases have declined slightly, while rates among people aged 50 years and over have increased. Cannabis is by far the most commonly used illicit drug among older Australians, but non-medical use of pharmaceutical opioids also contributes to the burden of harm in people in middle and older age.

It’s not just illicit drugs People often assume overdoses only happen to people who use illegal drugs. But prescription medicines also play a role. Older adults are over-represented in deaths involving pharmaceutical drugs obtained legally through the health-care system.

That doesn’t mean these medicines are unsafe when used properly. But they can become dangerous when combined with each other, mixed with alcohol, taken in higher doses than prescribed, or used by people whose bodies have become more sensitive with age.

Australians over 50 are also more likely to have a number of health conditions that require medication, such as chronic pain, insomnia, anxiety and depression. Many have different doctors prescribing for different health conditions and may take several medicines at the same time.

These medicines can interact in unpredictable ways if not carefully managed. Prescription opioids, commonly used for the short-term treatment of injury and pain, are the most common drug type involved in overdose deaths. They contribute to almost half of all unintentional drug overdoses.

These are medicines many Australians have used or would recognise, such as oxycodone, codeine and tramadol. Benzodiazepines, sometimes prescribed for short-term treatment of anxiety and insomnia, also play a major role in overdoses. Many Australians may recognise these medicines by their brand names: Valium (diazepam), Xanax (alprazolam) and Ronypnol (flunitrazepam).

When these two types of medicines are combined they can be lethal. More than 70% of unintentional deaths involve two or more types of drugs. Nearly 20% of unintentional drug-induced deaths involved alcohol. This was a decrease on previous years, but other data shows risky alcohol use is increasing among women in mid life, in particular, which could increase future risk.

Ageing also changes how our bodies process drugs Getting older means our liver and kidneys become less efficient at breaking down and removing medicines from the body. Older adults also have lower muscle mass and different body composition.

This all affects how the body processes drugs. The same dose that was tolerated at 40 may have a stronger effect at 60. People who use drugs are living longer As we learn more about preventing disease and staying healthy, we have developed better treatments for a range of illnesses, so people generally are living longer.

And that includes people who use illicit drugs. People who use illicit drugs have benefited from advances in hepatitis C and HIV treatment. Their health has also benefited from better access to harm-reduction options such as naloxone (which reverses opioid overdose), needle syringe programs and medically supervised injecting facilities.

Opioid agonist treatments, such as methadone and buprenorphine, are also now much more accessible. Read more: How does methadone work as a heroin-replacement therapy? And what about the longer-acting buprenorphine?

‘Late onset’ illicit drug use There is some limited evidence that a small proportion of people in their 40s and 50s are using illicit drugs for the first time or returning to drug use after a long break.

Some may self-medicate with illicit drugs rather than seeing a doctor. Life transitions such as retirement, bereavement, loneliness and declining physical health can all affect mental health and increase vulnerability to illicit drug use. Income also tends to increase with age and peaks between 40 and 60 years of age.

Illicit drug use rates are highest among people who are more socioeconomically advantaged. At the same time, older people are less likely to be screened for alcohol and other drug problems. Health professionals often overlook alcohol and other drug use in people in their 50s because they do not expect to see it.

Stigma plays a role, too An older person with signs of medication dependence may not identify with traditional drug treatment services. They may worry about being judged or fear losing their independence if they disclose drug use to a health professional or family member.

This means people over 50 more easily fall through the cracks. The growing number of overdose deaths among Australians in their 50s should prompt us to rethink who is at risk and how we respond. Overdose prevention should not focus solely on illicit drugs or specific age groups.

It also needs to consider: safer use of medicines and more cautious prescribing practices good communication between doctors and their patients to identify risky combinations reducing stigma so we can have open conversations about alcohol and other drug use at every age.

If we want to prevent these deaths, we need to recognise that drug-related harm does not disappear with age. It may just change shape. And so must our responses. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s drug use, you can call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015.

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector.

She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO at Hello Sunday Morning and a Board member of The Loop Australia.

Katinka van de Ven is the Head of Research and Evaluation of Hello Sunday Morning.

She also works as an evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/the-over-50s-are-most-likely-to-overdose-heres-how-older-people-use-drugs/

Tyra Banks is suing Netflix for defamation. The odds are against her
Banks is taking Netflix to court over its docuseries Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model. But US defamation law sets a high bar for proof.

US-Iran deal should see oil and LNG begin to flow again… slowly
Trump urged ships to return to the Strait of Hormuz and “let the oil flow”. But it’s not that straightforward.

The Iran peace deal must demand the release of Narges Mohammadi and other prisoners of conscience
Tens of thousands of people were arrested this year alone in Iran, and thousands are executed every year.

Your AI habit is wasting precious resources. Here’s how to use it responsibly
We know not to leave lights on all day. We also know not to run an air conditioner with windows open. We need a similar mindset for AI.

NZ’s health spending isn’t enough for current, let alone future needs – we’ve calculated the shortfall
Among 16 comparable countries, no other country has shrunk its public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP to the extent New Zealand has.

A world first: Australia will now investigate Israel over Gaza flotilla brutality
The Australian government has committed to an independent investigation into the assaults, sexual assaults and torture of the Gaza Flotilla humanitarians. Michael West Media reports. By Andrew Brown in Sydney This is the biggest story most Australians have not yet grasped. Australian survivors of physical, psychological and sexual abuse by Israeli authorities met with Foreign

Hugh Jackman plays Robin Hood as wicked – it’s a badly timed take on the hero of the poor
Who was the ‘real’ Robin Hood – community champion or violent criminal? Those in power and the people who shared his tales in pubs have long disagreed.

Latest polls still have One Nation leading on primary votes, but not gaining
Meanwhile, the Allan government is in trouble in Victoria ahead of November’s state election.

How do beta blocker heart drugs actually work for anxiety?
Beta-blockers block the effects of adrenaline, which is released when you’re in fight or flight mode. But they’re best known as a heart drug.

Screening all 3- and 4-year-olds for developmental delay makes sense. But diagnosing autism is different
As part of the Thriving Kids program, Victoria plans to screen three- and four-year olds for developmental delay before they get to kinder and school.

‘Every day I think about money’: how can we support uni students who struggle financially?
Getting into uni isn’t the only challenge. Students also need to be able to afford to stay.

What is education for? Why new Korean drama Teach You a Lesson is topping the charts
The popular new show is resonating deeply beyond borders for its exploration of the challenges of modern schooling.

KPMG lost its clients’ trust, yet kept winning government contracts. Here’s what needs to change
Auditors are paid to hold governments and businesses accountable – and protect our money. So what’s going on with these latest allegations of secret wrongdoing?

Should One Nation and the Coalition strike a deal to win office? There are huge risks for both parties
With One Nation soaring in the polls and the Coalition flagging, there has been talk about them striking a deal. But such a move may also help Labor retain office.

Putin wanted to make Russia great again. Instead, Ukraine is the new rising power in Europe
Russia is losing on the battlefield – and on the global stage, as the US and China distance themselves from the war.

Floating volcanic rock is disrupting life in Papua New Guinea – and the problem will last a long time
An underwater eruption has spread vast ‘rafts’ of pumice through the Bismarck Sea, hampering marine travel and wreaking uncertain long-term consequences.

800 visits to a suburban park: inside an epic 40-year birdwatching quest
Long-term studies by citizen scientists help us understand changes in nature

World Cup visitors may tip differently — here’s what Canadian hospitality workers should know
Millions of World Cup visitors come from countries where tipping isn’t customary. A hospitality management professor explains what that means for service workers in Canada.

Soaring US beef prices likely to rise further thanks to trade tensions and disease outbreaks
The tightly integrated North American beef market, under pressure from drought and the spread of the screwworm, could get further roiled by trade uncertainty.

Artificial intelligence raises profound moral questions — for all of humanity to answer
Ordinary people, not just technical experts, need to set the moral standards for regulation of AI.

American supermodel Tyra Banks faces an uphill battle – perhaps the greatest one since she tried launching “hot ice cream” in Sydney. Banks is suing Netflix and the directors of Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model, a docuseries released by the streamer in February.

She claims the program has defamed her. But as a public figure, she’ll need to meet a very high evidentiary standard to win this lawsuit.

The background On June 13, Banks filed a defamation lawsuit in the District Court of the Central District of California against Netflix, directors Daniel Sivan and Mor Loushy, and EverWonder Studio, over her portrayal in a docuseries about America’s Next Top Model (ANTM) (2003-18) – a show she created and hosted.

After Reality Check aired in February, Banks faced criticism from fans and the media for failing to take accountability for the show’s controversial practices. These included exploiting contestants’ trauma, criticising their appearance, and conducting problematic photoshoots (such as models posing as murder victims, or as different ethnicities).

Banks’ own lawsuit cites Reality Check’s impact on her Australian ice cream business, SMiZE & DREAM, for which online ratings plummeted by more than 20% after “viewers flooded the site with retaliatory reviews”. She claims Reality Check only used 16 minutes of her three-and-a-half hour interview, stripping it of context and reassembling it to support a false and defamatory narrative.

She particularly takes issue with the imputation she knowingly permitted an ANTM contestant to be sexually assaulted, exploited the contestant’s trauma for ratings, and appeared not to recall the incident afterwards. Banks is seeking damages (with the amount to be determined at trial) and an injunction barring the use of her image in connection with a Netflix album containing the docuseries’ soundtrack.

Why the odds are stacked against her The first hurdle Banks must overcome will be any waiver she signed during the production of Reality Check. Reality TV participants often have to sign agreements that relinquish their right to sue producers, licensees and other affiliates in relation to the work.

The common exceptions to this are instances of wilful misconduct or gross negligence. A participant might not like a “bad edit”, but as long as producers didn’t Frankenstein their words to manufacture an absolutely heinous statement, the producers may be in the clear.

Banks alleges the producers’ conduct was wilful and malicious so as to render her waiver inapplicable. Read more: Reality check: America’s Next Top Model docuseries never apologises for abuse of contestants Banks’ agreement with Netflix also goes further than your average contract between contestant and network.

Her “Rights Agreement” contained two promises on Netflix’s behalf: they would not edit Banks in a manner that “constitutes actionable defamation” and they would not replace her words (with other words uttered) in a way that materially changes the meaning of her statements.

Banks alleges they breached both of these obligations. Banks’ biggest hurdle, however, will arguably be winning this defamation lawsuit as a public figure in the United States. The rule in New York Times v Sullivan (1964), and the case law that followed, requires that public officials and public figures prove “actual malice” on the part of the publisher.

Accordingly, Banks must establish Netflix either knew the statements made about her were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, it is incredibly hard to prove the subjective mindset of a defendant was malicious.

The best case for Tyra’s lawyers would be if someone at Netflix sent an internal email saying something like, “We know it’s not true, but let’s edit the footage to make Tyra look like a villain”.

This high evidentiary standard on US celebrities is why many of them bring suits to places such as the United Kingdom or Australia, where defamation laws are more plaintiff-friendly. The publication of Rebel Wilson’s memoir represents a microcosm of the differences between Australian, UK and US defamation law.

After Sacha Baron Cohen threatened to sue, an entire chapter of the memoir was redacted in Australia, and portions of it were also blacked out in the UK – but no changes were made at all in the US.

Why is Tyra suing in the US? Publication in defamation law occurs wherever the material is downloaded, read or accessed. This means Banks could have potentially brought her lawsuit in Australia (or even other jurisdictions).

Australia is also Banks’ primary place of residence, and where she conducts her business. Ultimately, though, she has chosen to file the lawsuit in the US. This is probably because suing where the defendants are based increases the likelihood of being able to enforce and recover any damages awarded.

Though California courts may bring a higher risk of Banks’ case falling flat, they also offer higher reward in the form of uncapped punitive damages – which Banks has said she is explicitly seeking. Punitive damages are financial awards intended to punish a defendant for malicious or grossly negligent conduct.

Lawsuits as a PR tool Celebrity defamation lawsuits aren’t always about winning. Sometimes the simple act of bringing a claim plants the idea in the public’s mind that a lie has been told.

Banks may simply be trying to get her side of the story out. On the other hand, such lawsuits can also bring unwanted attention to allegations. This case will likely play out over years, not months – unless the parties reach a prior settlement.

If it does go to trial, and either party requests a jury, I hope it announces the verdict by stating: “Two of you stand before me, but I only have one picture in my hands…”

Floyd Alexander-Hunt 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/tyra-banks-is-suing-netflix-for-defamation-the-odds-are-against-her/

US President Donald Trump hailed the deal ending the US-Israel war with Iran with a triumphant message: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” he wrote on his online social media platform.

But how realistic is a swift resumption of ship movement through the Strait of Hormuz? Oil traders are hopeful. The benchmark price for Brent crude oil has fallen below US$80 a barrel to US$78.96 (A$111.82) for the first time since early March.

This signals a belief that Trump’s Iran deal is going to stick, despite the president claiming a peace deal about 40 times The US Navy has said its blockade will remain in place until the agreement is signed on June 19.

Even so, it could take at least six months before oil flows out of the Strait of Hormuz are back to pre-conflict levels, and much longer for liquefied natural gas (LNG), due to Iran’s extensive damage to Qatar’s LNG facilities.

Shippers are cautious A quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade and 19% of refined petroleum products are carried through the Strait of Hormuz. It also carries about one-fifth of the world’s LNG and a significant share of the global seaborne chemical trade, particularly fertilisers.

The conditions of the reopening are ambiguous. There is no published text of the draft agreement, but Iran’s Mehr state news reported there would be a reopening of the strait within 30 days under “Iranian arrangements”.

However, there should be some near-term supply boost. About 60 tankers loaded with crude oil that have been trapped in the Persian Gulf since the conflict began in February may be able to start moving oil to markets.

Some of these ships are large enough to carry 2 million barrels of oil (roughly two days of Australian oil consumption. But it will take longer for the significant number of ships waiting outside the Strait of Hormuz to enter the Gulf and be loaded, based on maritime traffic tracking data.

Is the strait safe? Since Sunday’s announcement, there has been little change to traffic through the strait. And shippers have given a cautious reaction to the draft agreement. Little wonder – 38 vessels have been hit during the conflict: 24 by Iran, four by the US and the rest unconfirmed.

According to reports, it could take also months to clear the strait of mines laid by Iran. There are mixed messages coming from Iran and the US, with Tehran saying it will charge a fee for services, while Trump said the strait will be toll-free.

This apparent difference has yet to be explained. Much damage is yet to be fixed The war caused significant damage to energy infrastructure in the region. More than 80 facilities were attacked during the conflict. The recovery will be gradual as damage has affected oil fields, refineries and pipelines across the Persian Gulf, IEA executive chairman Fatih Birol said.

This damage includes: United Arab Emirates Last month, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) said it would take until 2027 before full oil flows will resume, even with an immediate end to the conflict. The UAE is the third-largest oil exporter shipping through the strait behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Iran Iranian oil producers should welcome the agreement, which is expected to include a US waiver on oil sanctions that will allow Tehran to sell oil to more customers. However, some of Iran’s energy infrastructure was damaged when Israel struck the South Pars gas field and infrastructure at the nearby Asaluyeh processing hub.

Iran said it has restarted production at three offshore platforms in the South Pars gas field, but did not indicate how long it would take to repair the damaged infrastructure. Qatar A full recovery of the region’s LNG exports could take up to five years following an Iranian attack on the largest LNG processing facility, Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas complex.

Before the war, this facility was producing 77 million tonnes of LNG – almost 19% of global output last year. QatarEnergy said repairs will see 12.8 million tonnes offline for between three and five years. Australia has weathered the storm In the early weeks of the war, the IEA warned the Iran conflict was the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.

But despite this, Australia has weathered the storm in reasonable shape. The country has been importing record volumes of diesel, boosting stocks of the fuel vital to trucking mining and farming. Diesel accounts for more than half of Australia’s daily oil consumption.

As a result, Australia has managed to remain at level 2 of the National Fuel Security Plan, meaning there were no mandatory fuel restrictions. If it eventuates, a permanent peace deal will no doubt be welcomed by all energy users.

However, if the deal does not hold and the strait is once again forced to close, prices could rebound higher and drivers will be once again be concerned about future shortages.

Kevin Morrison is affiliated with the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/us-iran-deal-should-see-oil-and-lng-begin-to-flow-again-slowly/

Few Iranian women are as celebrated for defending freedom in Iran as Narges Mohammadi. She is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Andrei Sakharov Prize, the Olof Palme Prize, and the PEN and UNESCO press freedom awards, among others.

Yet, like thousands of other political prisoners in Iran, her own freedom still matters little to the powerful forces around her. As US President Donald Trump’s administration negotiates a deal with the Iranian regime to end their nearly four-month war, Mohammadi’s fate has not received even a mention.

There has been no commitment from Iran to release political prisoners as part of the deal. Nor does it appear the Trump administration has even made this request at any stage of the negotiation. Just over a month ago, Mohammadi was fighting for her life.

The 54-year-old activist had two suspected heart attacks in prison in northern Iran. After weeks of battling for access to medical care, she was granted a temporary suspension of her sentence on heavy bail and transferred to a hospital in Tehran.

In mid-May, she was moved from intensive care back to her home in Tehran under medical care and heavy security. Fighting against the regime For more than two decades, Mohammadi has insisted on seeing, naming and resisting the human rights violations of the Islamic Republic.

These include employing the death penalty as a tool of social control, as well as the use of torture and what she calls “white torture”, or prolonged solitary confinement. She has also fought against a system of gender apartheid that polices women’s bodies and speech.

As a leader in the Defenders of Human Rights Center, an Iranian NGO, she documented abuses, supported prisoners of conscience and their families, and campaigned to abolish executions and solitary confinement. She continued her work relentlessly from inside prison, interviewing other women detainees and turning their testimonies into an indictment of the carceral state.

Mohammadi has been arrested at least 13 times – most recently in December 2025 – and sentenced to more than 40 years in prison. She is one of thousands of prisoners of conscience across Iran. For decades, Iran’s authorities have carried out large-scale arbitrary detentions with impunity.

They have detained both real and perceived dissidents, as well as “debt prisoners” (those unable to pay their financial obligations). In response to the massive street protests across Iran in late 2025 and early 2026, the regime rounded up more than 50,000 people, including human rights defenders, lawyers, medical workers, students and even children.

Thousands more are believed to have been arrested since the war began. Many are being held in secret and unofficial detention facilities run by security and intelligence bodies, where they are subjected to forced confessions.

Some face charges that carry the death penalty. Amnesty International believes at least 2,159 people were executed in Iran in 2025, more than double the 2024 total. Since the war began, the organisation says at least 36 people have been executed on politically motivated charges.

Whose peace is being negotiated? The Trump administration is now working on a new “grand bargain” with Tehran that promises to deescalate the current tensions, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and compel Iran to give up its nuclear program.

The US and Europe have followed the same pattern of negotiations with Iran for decades. These talks tend to focus on instruments of hard power – weapons, uranium enrichment levels, sanctions, deterrence. Yet, what rarely surfaces in these negotiations with Iran is the fate of political prisoners or the importance of women’s and human rights.

Governments, multilateral institutions and media outlets often profess their symbolic solidarity with the Iranian people. Yet, when they actually have leverage with Tehran in negotiations, Western leaders revert to the language of “balance” and “pragmatism”.

Human rights are treated like a side issue. Mohammadi spent years documenting exactly how repression works in Iran. She helped champion the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising from inside a jail cell. Yet, she has never been at the centre of these conversations.

This is not confined to Iran. In conflicts around the world, women like Mohammadi are hailed as the “voice of freedom”, while being largely excluded from the rooms where ceasefires and political transitions are decided.

United Nations data and independent research continue to show that women remain dramatically underrepresented as negotiators, mediators and signatories in peace processes, despite decades of commitment to diplomacy and the pursuit of peace. What the peace negotiators should demand After the interim peace deal is signed this week, the negotiations with Iran will move into more delicate territory, focused on Tehran’s nuclear program.

But western powers should be honest about the kind of peace they are seeking, and at whose expense. The price of “stability” should not leave intact the carceral machinery that nearly killed Mohammadi and has killed many others over the years.

A sustainable peace settlement with Iran should not only be a security arrangement, but also a broader governance and human security framework. This begins with a demand Iran release political prisoners, including Mohammadi, as part of any deal.

Negotiators could also try to secure commitments on: reducing arbitrary arrests establishing a moratorium on executions guaranteeing prisoners access to legal counsel and fair trial procedures increasing transparency regarding detention conditions and prisoner welfare protecting journalists and safeguarding public access to communications and the internet and ensuring the meaningful participation of women and youth in shaping the country’s political future.

These will not be easy to get the regime to agree to. But if we can put extraordinary ingenuity into structuring sanctions against Iran, we can also find ways to prioritise these demands in a deal that claims to be focused on peace.

True homage to Mohammadi means more than issuing another statement wishing her a speedy recovery or awarding her another prize. It means insisting her fight defines what is acceptable in any bargain with Tehran.

It also means ensuring women’s rights defenders have a seat at the table.

Shadi Rouhshahbaz is a partner at the Metafuture think tank, a senior peacebuilding adviser at the Agency for Peacebuilding and a European Commission peace ambassador at One Young World.

Shadi was a 2023 Women Peacemaker Fellow 2023 at the Kroc School for International Peace and Justice at the University of San Diego and a 2023 Nuclear Disarmament Next Generation Foresight Practitioner Fellow at the School of International Futures.

Shadi also founded PeaceMentors, the first peacebuilding initiative led by young women in Iran in 2019.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/the-iran-peace-deal-must-demand-the-release-of-narges-mohammadi-and-other-prisoners-of-conscience/

Mukesh Sharma/Unsplash If someone used a large truck to deliver one envelope across the street, what would your reaction be? You would probably say it worked, but it was wasteful. The envelope arrived, but the method made little sense.

In many ways, this mirrors how we often use artificial intelligence (AI) today. We use powerful AI systems such as ChatGPT to write short messages, polish simple sentences, and answer questions we could handle ourselves with less intensive tools.

The outcome is the same. But under the hood, the differences in processing, electricity, and water use are enormous. One small request will not change the planet. But millions of small and unnecessary requests can add up over time.

The question is not whether AI is good or bad. The better question is whether we are using the right amount of AI for the right task. AI is becoming a utility AI is quickly becoming an everyday utility, like electricity.

But because it feels invisible, we can easily forget every use has a cost. We know not to leave lights on all day. We also know not to run an air conditioner with windows open.

We need a similar mindset for AI. AI is often described as living in “the cloud”. This makes it sound light, clean, and almost magical. But the cloud is not really a cloud. It is someone else’s computer.

More precisely, it is a large network of data centres filled with servers, chips, cables and cooling systems. When we interact with AI systems, they do not simply “know” the answers. They run calculations through large computer systems to generate a response.

Training large AI models require enormous resources, but daily use adds up too. Data centres can create significant carbon emissions. They also take up large tracts of land, put pressure on electricity grids and water supplies, and generate electronic waste.

The International Energy Agency has projected global electricity use by data centres could roughly double to around 945 terawatt-hours (TWh) by 2030. How to use AI more sensibly This makes it important to consider how we can use AI more sensibly – and sustainably.

First, choose the right tool for the task. Not every job needs the most powerful AI model. Sometimes a smaller tool, search engine, calculator, or even your own brain is enough. Ask yourself: is AI adding any value here, or am I using it out of habit?

Second, write clearer prompts. Vague questions often lead to many follow-up prompts. A clear first request can reduce this back and forth. It is like giving a taxi driver the correct address before the trip starts instead of constantly correcting the route along the way.

Third, ask only for what you need. If you need a short list, do not ask for a long report. More words usually mean more computing. Fourth, be more careful with images, audio, video and other media files.

These typically require more computing power than texts. The role of organisations and governments Large organisations have an even bigger responsibility. They should not add AI to every product just because it is fashionable. Before adopting AI, they should ask: what problem are we solving?

Is AI really needed? If it is, can we use a smaller model? Governments should also require large data centres to report electricity use, water use, emissions and electronic waste as part of planning approvals.

Australia has released guidelines for data centre developers, but they are voluntary, not law. New data centres should be planned very carefully, especially in places with limited water or stressed grids. Sustainability labels, like energy ratings on appliances, could help users compare tools by efficiency.

These measures could make sustainability part of normal AI governance, not an afterthought.

They could help ensure AI stops being the equivalent of the truck carrying one envelope across the street.

Seyedali Mirjalili 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/your-ai-habit-is-wasting-precious-resources-heres-how-to-use-it-responsibly/

Inverse Couple Images/Getty Images Health usually accounts for one of the largest expenditures in annual budgets, as it did in Budget 2026.

But the focus on year-on-year increases does not tell us how New Zealand’s health spending compares historically or with other countries – and most importantly, whether it is on track to meet future health needs.

We argue that without major changes to current policy settings and budgetary processes, there is no chance New Zealand can pay for the current and future health system it requires. We recently assessed the adequacy of government health spending by comparing it historically and with other countries and found expenditure fell well behind comparable countries during the 2010s and has not caught up since.

Recently, the Ministry of Health provided the latest required expenditure data to the OECD and the true level of government funding in the 2010s was even lower than we thought. How New Zealand fell behind on health spending In 2009, government expenditure on health, including for Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) cover, was 7.4% of GDP.

By 2018, it had fallen to 6.6%.

These figures are likely overestimated by at least 0.5% because New Zealand is the only country among those we compared it with where private health expenditure has a GST component and, to account for this, a “fictional” GST is added to tax-funded health expenditure.

Across 16 comparable countries, public health spending rose from 7.5% to 7.7% over the same period. No other country shrunk its health expenditure as a percentage of GDP to the extent New Zealand has. Taking a compatible approach using a different dataset, we calculated the funding shortfall for 2009 to 2018 to be around NZ billion, taking into account population growth and demographics.

This is equivalent to a whole year of health spending. This means New Zealand underinvested in the health system by about 10% a year for ten years. While there was an increase in health expenditure in the 2020s (even with COVID costs factored out), it has not filled this hole.

This underinvestment is why there are widespread staff shortages and patients find it difficult to access GP services and experience longer waiting times for specialist and hospital services. Budgets don’t factor in future costs The $5.5 billion of increased health funding announced in Budget 2026 (over four years) won’t do anything to mitigate the damage from the 2010s.

Over the next four years, this is around $420 million less than what’s required to deliver today’s range of services, once population growth, rising costs and levels of need are factored in.

Treasury has repeatedly advised that health costs will increase due to: A growing population ageing demographics, with older people needing more services and more people living longer with multiple chronic conditions technological developments, including new diagnostic tools and pharmaceuticals and health labour costs rising faster than general inflation because New Zealand is competing with other countries that pay more for skilled staff.

Currently, few of these future spending needs are effectively factored into budget processes. New Zealand could fall even further behind Given New Zealand’s ageing demographics, health costs associated with long-term conditions such as type 2 diabetes and dementia are projected to double or triple by 2050.

The demand for community-based and specialist mental health services continues to increase rapidly. There is no short, medium or long-term plan for meeting these costs, nor prevention approaches to mitigate them. A recent Infrastructure Commission report shows New Zealand has fallen considerably behind and is playing catch-up.

The commission estimates New Zealand should be spending 0.4% of GDP a year, double the 2010-2022 historical average of 0.2% of GDP, for these needs at about $1.9 billion in the coming year. Māori and Pacific communities are particularly affected by the current levels of health inequities.

Both Māori and Pacific populations develop long-term conditions up to 15 years earlier than Europeans and often receive poorer quality care. New Zealand must tackle these inequities more seriously if we are to improve productivity and quality of life.

Some future pressure could be relieved by longer-term investment in primary and preventive care and hauora Māori services. We estimate this to cost at least $6.6 billion in the short term, but argue it would save on high-cost hospital services in the medium term.

However, such savings alone wouldn’t be enough to achieve fiscal sustainability over the next 40 years. The UK’s health system is facing similar pressures. Health economists advised publicly funded health expenditure needed to lift to 9.9% of GDP by 2033/34 to address future challenges and maintain current levels.

Government health expenditure in New Zealand is currently 8% of GDP (including ACC). It is plausible it could reach around 8.5% by 2034 if recent trends continue. The shortfall between 8.5% and 9.9% of GDP is more than $6 billion a year in today’s dollars.

However, we need to add a caveat. Spending significantly more on health will not guarantee better health outcomes or value for money. Australia spends more on health than New Zealand, but some of that extra spending is of questionable value for money.

An example is the public funding of the private insurance rebate. However, when the UK lifted spending to the European Union average in early 2000s, after falling behind in 1990s, health outcomes improved. If we want a health system comparable to what New Zealand (imperfectly) delivered historically and what similar countries provide, we need health spending to reach 9.9% of GDP within the next decade.

But that will require tough decisions as it can only be paid for through significant increases in government revenue or spending cuts in other areas.

William John (Bill) Rosenberg is affiliated with Kaitiaki Hauora.

Jacqueline Cumming is affiliated with the Kāpiti Health Advisory Group and Kaitiaki Hauora.

Paula Lorgelly has received funding from the Health Research Council, the Ministry of Health, and the EuroQol Foundation.

She is a member of the Public Health Advisory Committee and the National Screening Advisory Committee.

Tim Tenbensel 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/nzs-health-spending-isnt-enough-for-current-let-alone-future-needs-weve-calculated-the-shortfall/

The Australian government has committed to an independent investigation into the assaults, sexual assaults and torture of the Gaza Flotilla humanitarians. Michael West Media reports.

By Andrew Brown in Sydney
This is the biggest story most Australians have not yet grasped.
Australian survivors of physical, psychological and sexual abuse by Israeli authorities met with Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Dr Anne Aly MP, a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and a senior DFAT official on Monday.
As a result, the Australian government has committed to an independent investigation into the assaults, sexual assaults and torture of the Gaza Flotilla humanitarians.

READ MORE: Family welcomes Australian investigation into IDF abuse claims
France opens ‘war crimes’ probe into Israel’s treatment of Gaza activists
Other allegations of Israeli brutality against Gaza flotilla activists

Read that again. Not an internal Israeli review. Not a department preparing a briefing note. Not a politician expressing concern.

An independent Australian investigation,
with the AFP at the table, into the conduct of the military and prison personnel of one of this country’s closest allies.
That is not normal. There is no comparable moment in the modern history of the relationship. A Western democracy, a reliable friend of Israel, has committed to formally investigating the Israeli state over what it did to that democracy’s own citizens.
That has not happened before. Anywhere.
Eleven Australians
The Australians were among humanitarian volunteers detained by Israel after attempting to deliver food, medicine and aid to starving civilians in Gaza. Eleven of them came home with allegations of physical abuse, assault and, in several cases, sexual assault.
And the investigation did not happen by accident. It happened because a handful of Australians refused to let it be buried.
Juliet Lamont and Neve O’Connor came home injured and traumatised, and instead of retreating into private recovery they kicked the door of the national conversation off its hinges. They put their names to sworn testimony. They sat through Senate estimates. They took their case to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
And when their own prime minister declined to meet them, Lamont’s response was devastating in its simplicity. If Australian survivors can be heard in The Hague but not in Canberra, something has gone badly wrong.

Today they were heard.
“We came here seeking justice for survivors of Israel’s abuse of Australian citizens,” Lamont said after the meeting. “Today we secured an Australian investigation. Believing survivors is the first step. Investigation is the second. Justice is the third.
“There must be consequences for Israel’s brutality.”
O’Connor put the stakes in their proper, global frame. “What happened to us is what Palestinians have been warning the world about for decades. The same methods. The same perpetrators. The same chain of command.
“This investigation matters not only because Australians were harmed. It matters because it exposes the nature of the state responsible.”
That is the heart of it. And it is why this is much bigger than 11 Australians and one flotilla.

Will Israel cooperate?
A credible investigation will need operational footage, body camera recordings, communications records, detention logs, medical records and witness statements. Material capable of establishing exactly what happened.
And this is where Israel is trapped. There are only two paths, and both are damning.
It can cooperate. Hand over the footage, open the logs, produce the records, name the personnel. If its account is true, that material exonerates it completely. A government confident in its own conduct does not hide the evidence. It rushes to produce it.
Or it can refuse. And if it refuses, every Australian is entitled to ask one question. Why? Why would a state that insists it did nothing wrong withhold the one thing capable of proving it? There is only one honest answer, and Israel knows it. You do not bury evidence that vindicates you.

You bury evidence that convicts you.
This is established behaviour. When the United Nations investigated the 2010 Mavi Marmara raid, Israel refused to let its soldiers be interviewed and ran its own inquiry instead. The pattern is decades old. Deny everything, investigate nothing independently, wait for the world to lose interest.
Israel denies
Israel’s ambassador maintains that participants were treated appropriately. Its prison service has issued a flat denial.
Yet National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted footage of detained activists handcuffed and forced to crouch as guards waved Israeli flags in their faces, and called himself proud of it. Let the evidence speak. A state with nothing to hide would already be couriering the files to Canberra.
What makes this explosive is who is asking the questions. Australia is not Iran, not South Africa, not one of Israel’s usual critics. It has spent decades as one of Israel’s most dependable friends.
When a loyal friend opens a file on you, the findings carry a weight no critics ever could.
Remembering Zomi Frankcom
Australians remember Zomi Frankcom. When the aid worker was killed in Gaza, the government accepted an Israeli internal review where it should have demanded answers. That impression has not faded. This time the government has committed to something different,

and it will be held to it.
Penny Wong has told the Senate she believes the women, calling their treatment horrific and unacceptable. Today she went further and committed her government to act. The question is no longer whether the allegations are credible. It is what Australia does with what it finds.
Sanctions. Travel bans. And the bluntest instrument of all. Australia could expel Israel’s ambassador and declare implicated officials persona non grata, putting them on a plane.
A few years ago the idea was fantasy. It is now a live question, and it sharpens with every day Israel stonewalls.
Australia breaks ranks
Understand what is truly at stake. For decades Israel has acted in the settled expectation that it answers to no one, underwritten by the certainty that its Western friends would always look away.
That assumption is what is now on trial in Canberra. The moment a trusted ally follows the evidence wherever it leads, the spell breaks, and other capitals discover they can ask the question too.
This is why the world is watching a story that began with a few small boats.
The 11 Australians have names. Neve O’Connor, Juliet Lamont, Zack Schofield, Surya McEwen, Sam Woripa Watson, Anny Mokotow, Bianca Pullman Webb, Ethan Floyd, Violet Coco, Gemma O’Toole and Helen O’Sullivan. They are not going away.
The era of impunity rested on a single belief. That no friend would ever break ranks. A friend just did.
Asia Pacific Report notes: Three New Zealanders on the Global Sumud Flotilla had similar allegations of brutality and inhuman treatment by the Israeli security forces, along with more than 300 people from more that 40 countries. France has opened a ‘war crimes’ investigation into Israel after the brutality.

Andrew Brown is a Sydney businessman in the health products sector, former Deputy Mayor of Mosman and Palestine peace activist. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/17/a-world-first-australia-will-now-investigate-israel-over-gaza-flotilla-brutality/

Letterboxd Robin Hood plays should be banned, wrote an advisor to King Henry VIII in 1536 – they were, he argued, teaching the public how to defy the king’s officers. It was basically the medieval equivalent of claiming video games make kids violent, part of a longstanding movement to ban performances and tales of Robin Hood.

This hero was really a villain, these medieval campaigners complained. A new film out tomorrow, The Death of Robin Hood, echoes this claim. Set in the far north of England in the year 1247, the film sees a wounded Robin Hood (Hugh Jackman), a “wicked and murderous bandit”, reflect on his life of crime.

“He was no hero,” claims the film’s tagline. IMDB But in our time of cost-of-living crises and rising authoritarianism, do we need a villainous Robin Hood?

One Reddit comment summed it up nicely: “Not sure I love the idea of tearing down a folk hero who fought against wealth inequality and greed from upper classes in the current era we’re in.

Feels pretty tone deaf.” The optics aren’t great. This hero-to-villain recasting comes in the wake of Jackman’s performance at Rupert Murdoch’s 95th birthday earlier this year, attended by members of the Trump family.

But do the film’s claims about Robin Hood’s villainous origins even stack up? What is the truth behind the legend? The history of Robin Hood We first see literary references to Robin Hood in the 1370s, when poet William Langland wrote that rhymes and romances of Robin Hood were shared in taverns.

Soon after, around 1405, a literary commentary on the Ten Commandments, framed as a conversation between a rich man and a poor man, complained that people would rather go to the pub to hear a tale of Robin Hood than attend church services.

The earliest known Robin Hood narrative survives within a critical source that rubbishes Robin’s popular appeal: Scotichronicon, compiled in the 1440s by Scottish abbot Walter Bower. The chronicle was a rejection of English claims over Scottish sovereignty.

Bower emphasised both the piety of the Scottish church and the periods of violence regularly breaking out across the border. He estimated that the Robin Hood myth originated during the Second Barons’ War (1264-67), in which the forces of Henry III and Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, battled for control over England.

Bower imagined Robin was one of the many disinherited soldiers who ravished the country following de Montfort’s defeat in 1265, placing him among those who stole crops and looted churches to make their living: At this time there arose from among the disinherited and outlaws and raised his head that most famous armed robber Robert Hood, along with Little John and their accomplices.

The foolish common folk eagerly celebrate the deeds of these men with gawping enthusiasm in comedies and tragedies. An early literary commentary complained people would rather hear a Robin Hood tale at the pub than attend church.

The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, Wikimedia Commons This is the very source that inspired director Michael Sarnoski’s 2026 vision. Yet Bower also admits that some of Robin’s exploits are commendable. In the very next sentence, he paraphrases a circulating tale where Robin is attacked by a viscount, while diligently holding a Mass in his forest hideout.

Despite the danger, and the pleas of his men to flee, his spiritual strength ensures he is the victor. This Robin is the one most visible in the later Middle Ages: not a violent bandit, but a star of action adventure stories that upheld the sanctity of the church and emphasised community values.

Robin Hood as medieval superhero The most common way everyday people engaged with the Robin Hood tradition was through play-games – a mix of costumed roleplays with genuine sporting competitions – which were held in spring and summer.

Evidence for these community performances date to the mid 1420s, where players in Exeter were paid 20 pence for playing a Robin Hood game for the mayor. Men would dress as Robin Hood and Little John and raise funds for community projects.

These appearances were essentially the equivalent of superheroes at shopping malls today, but Robin’s presence in medieval communities was not just about fun: it signalled things in the community needed fixing. Whether a church needing repairs, or a social rent needing to be reconciled, if Robin Hood was in your town, he was there to help.

Robin’s presence in medieval communities meant things in the community needed fixing. De Worde Gest Those who refused to serve the community became Robin’s enemies. In the literary tradition, this is the Sheriff of Nottingham and the greedy bishops of the church.

Robin was not strictly anti-authority, but anti-corrupt authority. He was staunchly loyal to the king, but challenged corrupt civic officials. He observed Mass three times a day, but harassed the greedy clerics of the church.

This reflected Robin’s fundraising role, encouraging all to do their part and chastising those who did not. The famous “rob the rich to give to the poor” mantra is a 16th-century simplification of this altruistic spirit.

Far from being a bloodthirsty criminal, the original Robin had a communal mindset – not an individualistic one.

Violence as an outlaw’s last resort Jackman has said that in the 15th-century poem A Gest of Robyn Hode, the outlaw is depicted as a violent cutthroat – but “from these grim beginnings emerged a hero”.

Yet the Gest famously features the first glimpses of a gentrified Robin, depicted as the gracious host of feasts. This is not a softening of some earlier, violent version of the outlaw, but a simple reflection of his role as the host of the feasts of his communal games.

While some tales contain violent episodes, they were not hidden, but were celebrated by communities. The oldest surviving Robin Hood play, circa 1475, features the beheading of a knight – a moment intended to elicit a cheer from the audience at the defeat of an enemy.

The early Robin Hood tales featured violence, but they were not inherently violent stories: no more than Superman is violent because he fights his enemy Lex Luthor. Reading violence into the medieval literary tradition goes against the grain of their context as cautionary tales, which also contain comedy, friendship and love.

Robin does not harm the poor or the innocent – only those who are selfish, or isolated from society. Violence is a last resort for this outlaw. His primary weapon is guilt and shame. He is someone who demands better from his audience and leads by example.

It is therefore pretty telling that those who complained about Robin’s popularity were often the kinds of people the outlaw would attack. If you had a guilty conscience, you had something to hide – priests and public officials complaining the outlaw was being too hard on them is quite the tell.

The early Robin Hood tales featured violence, but like Superman, they were not inherently violent stories. Wikimedia Commons Robin’s real criminal origins To what extent, then, does The Death of Robin Hood’s portrait of Robin as a violent criminal ring true?

The earliest traces of the Robin Hood tradition is a nickname for criminals, dated to 1262. A Berkshire fugitive had his name changed by a London clerk, from William le Fevere to William Robinhood (“Robehod”). Records show a short string of such aliases likely imposed by clerks: to be a Robin Hood was to be a violent criminal.

There was no character yet – only the name. By the end of the 13th century, “Robin Hood” begins to appear as a surname for both individuals and families, without any criminal implications. These were tax-paying people, law-abiding citizens, yet they named themselves after Robin Hood.

Perhaps someone didn’t like being called a Robin Hood and they decided to own it, like reclaiming a slur?

By the mid-14th century, we begin to see the green-clad outlaw of Sherwood Forest emerge as a hero against the grain of the typical outlaw story, not fighting for his own freedom but for the rights of the community at large.

Robin Hood was not modelled on the criminals of the 13th century, but on the spirit of those who challenged a label they refused to wear.

So, flipping the script on a violent Robin Hood is not so new after all.

William Hoff 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/2026/06/16/hugh-jackman-plays-robin-hood-as-wicked-its-a-badly-timed-take-on-the-hero-of-the-poor/