Why do the establishment media continue to legitimise politicians like One Nation's Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce? Managing editor Michelle Pini analyses the media's obsession with the PHONies. 

It’s hard to believe there was a time when Barnaby Joyce was representing the nation as Australia’s Acting Prime Minister and, on the day he was promoted to Deputy PM, proudly strutting his stuff on the streets in shorts and Akubra.

It was also during those heady days that Barnaby – then married for 24 years, a father of four and a staunch Catholic – hid his secret affair with a staffer, who also ended up pregnant with his child, triggering the infamous “bonk ban” in his honour.

It was difficult to avoid seeing him and hearing his fulminations back then, which later included ranting at the sky that he was “sick of the government being in his life”, despite him being an MP of said government at the time. Was he largely incoherent back then? Yes. Was he more frequently than not turning up to Parliament looking bedraggled and worse for wear? Of course. But he was also the Leader of the Nationals and the person who took over when the PM was otherwise disposed. It made sense for the media to give him airtime, no matter how insane his ramblings often were.

Merry Christmas pic.twitter.com/QGYPv51pTN

— Barnaby Joyce (@Barnaby_Joyce) December 24, 2019

Fast forward several years, a few intimate moments with a planter box and a few hundred obscenities later, plus turning up to parliament allegedly inebriated and falling asleep on a more regular basis, among other career highlights, and Barnaby – finally relegated to the back bench by the party to which he was tethered for 30 years, three of them as leader – has now defected. 

These days, Joyce may be seen and heard ranting about, well, mostly the same stuff, and on the same mainstream “media” outlets, except now spewing forth with his “knockabout larrikin” ways from the warm embrace of the even less respected (hard to believe, we know) Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON). Only his chief sponsor remains unchanged, billionaire Gina Rinehart.

These “knockabout larrikin” ways, which extend to disinformation and general idiocy on a wide variety of subjects, such as climate denial, support of Trump, a penchant for drilling and digging every natural resource, and are sprinkled with regular doses of bigotry, racism, misogyny and all the Far-Right hatred on which Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has staked its “reputation”. 

There is no doubt that Barnaby suits the PHONies — the party that shares its unqualified opinions on repeat, and without concern for the feelings of others, the accuracy of its claims or, well, the existence of any facts whatsoever. What may be harder to understand, however, is why the media, including the public broadcaster, continue to amplify him, his even more unintelligible leader, Pauline Hanson and PHON's ratbag collection of... let's call them "larrikins". 

This week, Barnaby opined that there is "nothing to be gained" from condemning Trump'. He also ranted about fossil fuel policy, why we should frack the living daylights out of everything and why we shouldn’t have any climate policies. Oh, and also, why a violent rapist deserves a “second chance” — in a plum role, working for parliamentarians, and paid for by the taxpayer.

Profound words from the man who is known for taking to YouTube to yell loudly at the sky, publicly shouting profanities into his phone while lying on the ground and has a history of disturbing sexual harassment allegations against him (which IA has investigated). 

His boss, Pauline, meanwhile, often takes to the airwaves to share her thoughts about Trump and how she loves "absolutely everything about Donald Trump” and thinks “all of his policies are fantastic”. Pauline also called for Australia to "help stamp out evil" by joining in the U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran.

Pauline also expressed support this week for their former staffer and convicted rapist, Sean Black, and blamed the other parties for forcing One Nation to sack him because of the “harassment” the PHONies endured. 

Now, with an obscene war and ongoing genocide in the Middle East, the oil crisis and a looming global recession, on what does the media wish to focus: One Nation.

Some time back, David Speers interviewed PM Albanese, who criticised the preference deal between the Coalition and One Nation, which he said legitimised One Nation’s hard right grievances, which are presented without solutions, as “a cul-de-sac that doesn’t lead the country anywhere”.

But Speers kept interrupting, demanding answers to idiotic questions, such as:

• But do you need to engage with [One Nation] as a party?
• When was the last time you met with Pauline Hanson?”
• But is there a point at which you would treat One Nation as the real opposition?

The only self-respecting answers to these questions then and now are surely: No, No and Never — WTF?!

Nonetheless, Albanese calmly responded by explaining that Pauline Hanson can’t even engage, rarely rocks up to work and “often isn’t in Parliament”. The PM drew the line at pointing out that the media was also legitimising PHON’s idiocy, though, of course, they were and they continue to do so. Nor did he stoop to mention that One Nation is unelectable and Barnaby and Pauline, at best, buffoons.

As IA founder Dave Donovan wrote recently: 

Australians are not stupid, mostly. Why would they risk Pauline Hanson, a stammering, stumbling, invariably incomprehensible incompetent, with a party made up of clowns, misfits and criminals, which is utterly bereft of any coherent policies or governing credentials, with the precious levers of power? …

 

… Australians – decent Australians, the majority – will never allow this laughable party of descention, offence and indignation to ever attain any more than a handful of lower house seats, IA contends. Not enough, IA further suggests, to even grant them a trial run on the opposition benches of any Australian Parliament across our great brown land.

All of which brings us back to the question of why the mainly billionaire-owned mainstream media, led by Murdoch and bolstered further by the national broadcaster, and of course, the billionaire-controlled algorithms of social media platforms, continue to prop up these grifters?

For the same reasons that Trump was twice catapulted to the presidency. Because, like Trump, Barnaby Joyce and Pauline Hanson, and the PHONies are not "larrikins". Their toxic diatribes give people permission to be obnoxious, misogynistic, racist and bigoted, and to publicly express all the other dark parts of the human psyche that should not see the light of day.

In the past, such behaviour would be unseemly in a politician. Politicians were once respected as village elders, not idiots.

Disturbingly, enabling people to be hateful and cruel, and still obtain respectability, provides for the media – and its billionaire backers – the opportunity to sow doubt, prey on ignorance, legitimise and stir up divisions, and ultimately, create an environment where policies based on "othering" and greed can continue to line the pockets of the actual elites, while labelling everyone else "the elites". 

The aims are really pretty simple: the principles of low regulation, which permit the continued pillaging of the environment and workers, more wars requiring more armaments and ultimately, more money for the already obscenely affluent.

This editorial was originally published as part of the Independent Australia weekly newsletter. Subscribe to IA to access all our work from as little as $1.15 per week and help power our journalism in 2026.

Follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social and Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter@independentaus and Facebook HERE.

Assisted living communities extend beyond simple accommodations. Considerate amenities in these environments facilitate the comfort, engagement, and well-being of those residing there.

These residents can transform their daily lives and feel valued and connected if they choose a facility with the right characteristics.

Comfortable living spaces

Facilities for assisted living in San Diego emphasise welcoming, open spaces. Your suite room should be large with dimmable lights and ergonomic furniture, all of which will help you relax. Their dwelling may be private or shared, but it should promote independence and provide safety and peace of mind for the residents.

Nutritious dining options

Proper nutrition is still important for successful aging. Most assisted living homes offer meals cooked by chefs (and often have a home-cooked food taste) and work with residents who have different dietary preferences or health statuses. Common eating halls allow for companionship, which lets residents eat together in a warm and caring environment.

Enriching activity programs

Active engagement reinforces mental and personal well-being. A resident can also be involved in group courses, hobby clubs and seasonal festivals. Recreation coordinators arrange a schedule for each day with a mix of events and workshops, so everyone can get a chance to play and learn.

Fitness and wellness initiatives

Wellness programs and on-site exercise classes focus on physical health. Residents stay mobile and strong through walking groups, gentle yoga and aquatic therapy. Experienced trainers lead sessions and tailor routines to individual capabilities.

Personalised care services

Assisted living communities understand that needs differ. Help with bathing, dressing and medication reminders is highly customised. Residents can live as they choose, with dignity and independence, thanks to qualified staff who help them.

Access to healthcare professionals

Assisted living places emphasis on healthcare, too. Health issues receive prompt attention from on-site nursing staff and visiting medical practitioners in the community. Regular reassessments and medication reviews ensure up-to-date safety and comfort.

Social and recreational spaces

Lounges, libraries, and outdoor patios serve as common areas for relaxation, comfort and connection. These spaces are gathering places for residents to engage in conversation, play games, or simply enjoy quiet contemplation. These communal areas help foster friendships and alleviate isolation.

Transportation services

Scheduled transportation provides effortless access to appointments, shopping, or cultural events. A dependable shuttle service keeps residents connected to the wider community. Safe travel arrangements enhance convenience and reassurance for residents and families.

Housekeeping and laundry assistance

As people age, doing even the smallest of daily chores can become challenging. In an assisted living setting, housekeeping and laundry services keep things tidy. Housekeeping services maintain rooms, ensure clean linen and fresh clothing, and create an environment that promotes health and comfort.

Technology access and support

Keeping in contact with family and friends is vital. For example, technology support and internet access in many communities enable residents to stay connected over video or online activities. Devices are available that allow staff to assist, making communication easier and reducing the burden of using these devices.

Gardens and outdoor areas

Natural spaces contribute to well-being. Greenery, walking paths, and patios encourage residents to go outside for fresh air and sun. Such space could be where you do a bit of light exercise, a little gardening, or just spend time relaxing in an environment free of noise.

Safety and security features

When there are safety measures, peace of mind grows. These facilities have secured entrances, emergency call systems, and staff available 24 hours a day to respond to any possible situation. By incorporating thoughtful design features, they can minimise fall risks and help residents feel safe.

On-site beauty and barber services

Grooming promotes confidence and self-esteem. In addition to communal dining, many assisted living residences have hair salons or barber shops where you can get quick access to a haircut and styling. Residents often feel more spruced up and pampered with regular access to grooming services.

Spiritual and emotional support

Holistic well-being encompasses spiritual needs. Consultations with chaplaincy, meditation, and other faith-based gatherings are all forms of comfort and connection. The activities that foster hope and inner peace can be part of what you do as a resident.

Conclusion

Assisted living communities support independent living, community, and health by utilising amenities that shape the daily environment. Studies have demonstrated the direct impact of these elements on satisfaction and happiness, underscoring their importance for families seeking quality care. Attentive surroundings nurture the well-being of residents.

Obtaining a visa is an exercise in foresight, patience, and organisation. As global mobility continues to increase, people and families are often looking for more permanent, secure alternatives. This methodical approach will help ensure a successful transition with minimal impact and provide retroactive counseling for years to come.

Understanding visa categories

Applicants need to study the types of visa plan options provided before applying for one. Each plan has different purposes and requirements. Closely aligning your personal or professional needs to the appropriate category is key to eligibility. Adopting this approach saves time and enhances the likelihood of acceptance.

Setting clear goals

It is better for applicants to define their aspirations ahead of time. Despite whether the goal is to seek education and work or if the objective is to reunite with family, clarification informs strategy. Having goals enables people to focus on the right paperwork, timelines, and qualifications. That vision can help avoid delays or unnecessary complications in the process.

Gathering accurate documentation

Correct and thorough documentation is the backbone of any visa application. Each visa category requires its set of documents, which include ID, proof of funds, and a letter of intent. Failing to provide the correct, full materials can delay. Checking every requirement before file submission boosts the application.

Seeking professional guidance

Getting in touch with some of the veterans of the arena can be helpful. An expert understands what current regulations are and if any policy changes or best practices are on the way; they can avoid typical pitfalls through their guidance and learn how to handle unexpected obstacles. Most of the successful applicants attribute their success to some expert guidance, which helped them succeed at those critical moments.

Staying informed about policy changes

The guidelines for immigrant policies change every day, which impacts whether someone will be competent to petition for a particular type of immigration or not. Stay informed about the latest changes by regularly monitoring official sources. This approach provides ample time to accurately address these issues. Relying on old information could lead to lost opportunities or rejections that you could otherwise avoid.

Building a strong case

A strong application goes beyond simply fulfilling the requirements. You can form a convincing narrative from personal statements, references, and supporting evidence. Providing evidence of accomplishments, abilities and aspirations can fortify your argument. Applications that are clear and accessible to decision-makers are often very welcome.

Maintaining compliance

Once granted, visa holders must comply with their visa's conditions. It could come in the form of reporting specific updates, renewing your documentation, or fulfilling residency requirements. Failure of compliance can threaten long-term plans and even lead to removal. By paying consistent attention to rules and deadlines, you can protect future opportunities.

Planning for renewal or transition

Preparing for the next step is the key to sustainability. A lot of these visas will require a renewal or eventually transition into another sort of permit. Plan and prepare the best documents in advance to reduce stress when they arrive. Taking proactive steps can facilitate transitions and help you remain in one place.

Investing in language and integration

Language skills or your integration into your new community can determine visa renewals or even moves towards permanent residency. By enrolling in language courses or participating in local activities, you can demonstrate your commitment to integration. Such initiatives could reflect in a positive light in front of decision-makers and facilitate the transition process.

Keeping financial records organised

Financial transparency throughout the entire visa process is essential. Authorities require a stable income, savings, or sponsorship from applicants. Keeping track of finances is useful to demonstrate compliance and can aid in renewal or transition applications. Responsible and stable finances are well documented.

Adapting to changing circumstances

Things don't always proceed as planned. Changes in employment, family needs, or regulations can influence an individual's decision to participate or not. Being adaptable and willing to change is a desirable quality for long-term success. Applicants who stay abreast and call on feedback in real time have the capability to respond to new occurrences with confidence.

Conclusion

Creating a visa strategy is careful work; you need to be organised, have specific and focused goals, and pay attention to the ever-changing landscape of immigration law. Preparedness, scheduling and open-mindedness can pave the way for a brighter future. Well-thought-out planning, flexibility and a dedication to compliance at each point along the road will sustain your success over the long term.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump talks tough on... well... everything!

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

Let's be honest, finding a good electrician shouldn't feel like a gamble.

But when you're scrolling through Google at 10pm because your lights keep flickering, or planning a renovation and need someone who won't disappear halfway through the job, it's hard to know who to trust.

Wollongong's got plenty of sparkies around. The problem? They're not all created equal. Some show up when they feel like it. Others quote one price and charge another. And then there are the ones who leave your place looking like a bomb went off.

So if you're after an electrician in Wollongong who actually does what they say they'll do, here's what you need to know.

Why this actually matters

Look, I get it. Electrical work isn't exactly exciting. But dodgy electrical work? That's a different story. We're talking power outages at the worst possible moment, unsafe wiring that keeps you up at night, fire hazards you didn't even know existed, and repair bills that make your eyes water.

When you choose someone reliable, you're not just paying for cables and switches. You're paying for the peace of mind that comes from knowing it's been done properly, safely, and won't need fixing again in six months.

What Wollongong homeowners actually need

Most people aren't electrical engineers. They just want the lights to work, the power points in the right spots, and maybe some help getting their homes into the 21st Century without spending a fortune.

Fixing the basics

Older homes around here tend to have the same issues, outdated power points, switches that don't quite work anymore, and wiring that makes you nervous. A decent electrician will sort this stuff out quickly and make sure everything's up to code.

LED lights (because power bills are already high enough)

If you haven't switched to LED yet, you're leaving money on the table. It's one of those rare upgrades that actually pays for itself. The trick is finding someone who knows quality products and won't try to upsell you on rubbish.

The annoying stuff that keeps happening

Lights that flicker for no reason. Circuits that trip every time you use the toaster. Those weird electrical smells that make you wonder if you should be worried. A good electrician doesn't just patch these problems — they figure out what's actually causing them.

If you want someone local who knows their stuff, Easther Electrical has been doing this around Wollongong for over a decade.

For businesses (because downtime costs money)

Running a business in Wollongong is hard enough without electrical problems shutting you down. Whether you're opening a new shop, renovating your office, or just trying to keep the lights on, you need an electrician who gets that time is money.

Setting up new spaces

Got a lease on a new premises? The electrical setup probably needs work. Maybe it's an old building that needs rewiring, or a brand new fit-out that needs to be done from scratch. Either way, you want someone who can handle the whole job without drama.

Keeping everything running

Businesses need regular electrical maintenance. Not the fun kind of maintenance — just the boring, necessary kind that stops things from breaking at 2pm on a Friday. Safety testing, RCD checks, all that compliance stuff that keeps you out of trouble.

When things go wrong fast

Electrical emergencies don't care that you've got customers waiting or a deadline to meet. You need someone who picks up the phone and actually shows up. Not "sometime this week" — now.

The advanced stuff (Level 2 work)

Not every electrician can do everything. Some jobs require what's called a Level 2 electrician, someone who's licensed to work on the actual power network, not just your property.

This includes things like upgrading your main power supply, replacing old switchboards, sorting out metering issues and dealing with overhead or underground service lines. It's specialised work that needs specialised training.

Easther Electrical does Level 2 work across Wollongong, which means you don't need to find a second electrician when the job gets complicated.

Emergency call-outs (for when you really need help)

Electrical emergencies are stressful. Power's out. Something's burning. You can see exposed wires. These aren't problems you can leave until Monday morning.

When you call someone at 3am, you want them to actually answer, know what they're doing when they get there and fix the immediate problem without causing new ones. Easther Electrical does 24-hour emergency work around the Illawarra, which is worth knowing when panic sets in.

Going green (without going broke)

More people around here are looking at energy-efficient upgrades. LED lighting throughout the house, smart systems that actually save you money, motion sensors, solar set-up support, EV chargers for the driveway. The options are there if you know what to look for.

A good electrician helps you figure out what makes sense for your place and your budget, not just what's trendy.

How to tell if an electrician's actually reliable

Here's what to look for:

They've been around

New businesses come and go. Someone who's been working in Wollongong for years knows the area, knows the common problems in local homes, and isn't going to disappear after they've taken your deposit.

They're properly licensed

This should go without saying, but always check they're fully licensed and insured. If they can't show you their credentials, walk away.

They don't cut corners

You can tell when someone's rushing through a job or using cheap materials. Quality work takes time and costs a bit more, but it lasts.

They're upfront about pricing

No one likes surprise bills. A reliable electrician gives you a clear quote before they start and sticks to it.

They actually communicate

Ever dealt with a tradie who goes silent for three days, then rocks up unannounced? Yeah, that's not reliability. Good electricians keep you in the loop.

People recommend them

Check the reviews. Ask your neighbours. Word of mouth still means something around here.

Easther Electrical's been building their reputation in the Illawarra for over ten years now, working with homeowners, builders, and local businesses. That kind of track record doesn't happen by accident.

Bottom line

Electrical work isn't something you want to cheap out on or leave to chance. Whether it's fixing something small, upgrading your whole place, or keeping your business running smoothly, the right electrician makes all the difference.

If you're after someone reliable in Wollongong, Easther Electrical is worth checking out. They do the full range, residential, commercial, Level 2, emergency work, and they've been doing it well for a long time.

Through meticulous research, Professor Alice Roberts traces the incremental acceptance of Christian monotheism in the time of Jesus Christ to, within 300 years, filling ecclesiastic roles of bishops and clergy. Dermot Daley reviews 'Domination – The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity'.

PROFESSOR ROBERTS' BOOK Domination – The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity is cleverly titled, with the word "domination" deriving from the Latin "domine" meaning "Lord".

It took several chapters to see where she was going after wading through archaeological references to obscure 5th-century Welsh saints and their strange coincidence of presence in Brittany, France.

This detail seemed somewhat twee given the contentious pathways to sainthood which existed in the early days of Christianity. Professor Roberts has excellent credentials in archaeology, history, evolution, human anatomy and physiology, so perseverance was required.

The Roman Empire was an outstanding achievement, adopting and advancing the social and technical advances of Greek civilisation, as well as maintaining the continuity of polytheism, a god for every occasion.

Professor Roberts does not delve deeply into the life and politics of Jesus of Nazareth, apart from describing him as the figurehead of the early cult of Christianity who was later elevated to divine status.

However, she notes that the accepted accounts of his life were documented between 65 and 100 years after he died.

And in particular, she acknowledges the zealous evangelism of convert Saul/Paul, who avidly elaborated upon and promoted the Christian cause in his correspondence to the faithful, possibly around 40 to 60 CE, but written down considerably later, noting that by the 3rd Century, only five to twenty per cent of the population could read.

Through meticulous research, Roberts traces the incremental acceptance of Christian monotheism, identifying the initial appeal to "humble fishermen and tent-makers" in the time of Jesus Christ. 

Then, within 300 years, achieving a steady uptake by an ennobled class who seemed to drift fluidly between highly placed positions in the Rome-centric civil government to high-ranking orders within the emerging Christian church, filling ecclesiastic roles of bishops and clergy.

She states that by 300 CE, only one to two per cent of the Roman Empire were followers of Christianity.

Professor Roberts provides great detail on the symbolism and the influence of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who is credited with adopting Christianity, and hence giving impetus to the movement.

Professor Roberts contends that the real power shift occurred with Constantine’s Council of Nicaea, where central tenets were adopted and Christianity became its own brand. 

This tipping point signalled the formal application of the Christian values of philanthropy and charity, when it became a duty of bishops to provide lighting oil and food for the poor. The early Christians fostered monasteries and communities (offering benefits to women) that could accumulate wealth through land, and thence devise means of avoiding taxes.

Professor Roberts suggests that prosperity was deemed a mark of god’s favour, and that this entrenched Christianity as the archetype 'firm' or 'corporation'.

The fall of Rome, she reveals, was not an overnight sensation but more a relaxing of control, originating sometimes within colonised Gaul and sometimes from Rome itself.

At times, the Roman order prevailed; at other times, allegiances fluctuated between competing invaders and different Goth and Visigoth kings. Sometimes the Goths were acting as mercenaries for the Romans. Life still seemed to go on without too much turmoil for the ruling classes as well as for the peasants.

Professor Roberts admits to being at a loss to understand why the new cult of Christianity became favoured by societies enmeshed in millennia (Greek) and centuries (Roman) of polytheism, and ventured that the prize on offer by the 'One God' seemed to be simply the ‘ticket to Heaven’ promised by the Christians.

Professor Roberts has appended an impressive set of ‘Selected References’ to her highly erudite history.

Still, she does not seem to have encountered ‘The Immortality Key’ by Brian C Muraresku, which investigated sacramental rituals from the Bronze Age through the Greek and Roman civilisations, and well into the foundation of the Christian Church. This study offers profound insight into some of the ceremonies that echo in the Christian creed to this day.

As with Professor Roberts, Brian C Muraresku brandishes impeccable qualifications and anyone considering either book would benefit from including the other.

Dermot Daley is a fourth-generation Australian, living in Victoria, now retired from construction project management​.

As job losses, inflation and weak growth impact many economies, Australia advances apace, as Alan Austin reports.

AMONG THE LATEST global institutions to commend prime manager Anthony Albanese and his chief accountant Jim Chalmers are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Knight Frank and Standard & Poor’s (S&P).

International property consultants Knight Frank released its 20th annual wealth report last Thursday and singled out Australia for special mention. After years of sluggish growth in wealth and income, prosperity is now increasing steadily.

Surge in personal wealth

Australians with wealth above $30 million are forecast to increase by almost 60% over the next five years, to a total of 26,095 — nearly one in every 1,000 residents.

Australia’s booming affluence, according to Knight Frank:

‘...reflects more than just rising asset prices. It speaks to a broad -based, resilient economy anchored in agriculture and mining, and increasingly powered by finance, business services and a fast-maturing technology sector.’

Those engines have created a depth of wealth that now outstrips most comparable economies, with the billionaire population forecast to grow by a staggering 77% between 2026 and 2031. That increase in billionaires, if it eventuates, will be the world’s fourth-highest. The top three are Saudi Arabia, Poland and Sweden.

The report concludes:

‘In a world where wealth is becoming more mobile, Australia stands out for the diversity and durability of its wealth creation story.’

Also important in wealth creation, of course, is the distribution of that largesse across all percentiles. Knight Frank offers no data on this, but the annual UBS Global Wealth Report does. Due mid-year, we await that with interest.

City house price rises moderating

A valuable section in Knight Frank’s report is its annual PIRI 100 – the prime international residential index – which ranks the world's richest cities by rate of increase in property values.

Last week’s update showed Sydney has fallen from ranking 30th in the world in 2018 to 78th in 2026. This does not mean values have declined, just that the rate of increase has moderated. This is most encouraging.

Brisbane is down from 31st to 54th. Melbourne has tumbled from 41st to 84th, and the Gold Coast has slipped from equal 42nd to 48th. Perth, in contrast, has risen from equal 42nd to 37th.

IMF confirms Australia’s ascendancy

Treasurer Chalmers was keen to highlight the positive data in this month’s biennial Fiscal Monitor from the International Monetary Fund. Well, he might, given the refusal of most Australian newsrooms to report anything which might drag consumer and business confidence out of the cellar.

Headed ‘Australia now top three in G20 budget rankings’, the Treasurer’s media release claimed that the IMF shows Australia ‘has surged up global rankings for best budget management to have one of the three strongest budget balances in the G20, up from 14th under our predecessors’.

A note on country comparisons

Those observations are accurate and quite valid, given Australia is a member of the G20. That contrasts with the previous hapless Coalition governments, which made deceptive comparisons with the G7, of which Australia was not a member.

This column, however, prefers OECD members for comparisons, as these are 38 developed countries with mixed capitalist economies and mostly liberal democracies. The G20 is a smaller group which includes developing nations Indonesia, India and South Africa, and single-party states Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. We will also focus on past and present results rather than speculative forecasts.

With any grouping, however, results are far more positive today than at any time since the Rudd/Gillard years.

Key IMF findings for 2026

The Fiscal Monitor’s principal listing comprises 30 highly advanced OECD members with which comparisons are instructive. It excludes developing countries Costa Rica, Colombia and others, and the USA, for which reliable data has been unavailable since the Trump Administration replaced its professional statisticians with lackeys.

Growth in Australia’s GDP is projected to be 2% this year, ranking equal seventh among those 30 economies. That’s up from 21st in 2019 and 22nd in 2021.

On overall budget balance, Australia ranks 13th, up from 30th in 2019 — dead last!

This has been achieved by stronger government revenue and controlled spending. Australia’s spending is 39.1% of GDP, well below the OECD average of 45.4%, thus undercutting mendacious newsroom claims that Labor is a spendthrift administration.

Ranking this year is fifth in this group of 30, up from ninth in 2019. See chart below.

Australia’s gross debt to GDP ranks 12th in this group, up from 14th from 2020 to 2022, having snuck ahead of New Zealand and South Korea.

Credit ratings news

In a positive signal from ratings agency S&P, Australia’s composite purchasing managers' index (PMI) jumped from 46.6 in March to 50.1 in April. The PMI measures the performance of the private sector each month by combining data from both manufacturing and service industries.

According to Trading Economics, export orders continued to grow, but only modestly, helped by sales to North America, Asia and New Zealand. Employment growth picked up, allowing companies to reduce backlogs.

Relentless negative press

Meanwhile, the mainstream newsrooms continue to ignore most positive outcomes. Recent alarmist headlines, most with highly misleading content, include:

• ‘Economic nightmare just weeks away’ (The West Australian, 20 April 2026);
• ‘Australia’s inflation time bomb: why the worst is yet to come’ (AFR, 23 April 2026);
• ‘Aussies face weeks of tough economic news’ (Herald Sun, 25 April 2026);
• ‘We won’t last six months’: Aussie trucking industry faces wipe out’ (Courier Mail, 15 April 2026); and
• 'Complacent market drifts lower as economic outlook sours’ (ABC News, 17 April 2026)

That’s Australia. Rich in talent, enterprise, capital, resources, property and overall wealth. Extremely poor in news and data analysis.

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001 and Bluesky @alanaustin.bsky.social.

They came from communities big and small, they fought and died, remembered now by inscriptions written on stone columns by the grateful. 

Local Anzac Day ceremony at Warrandyte, Victoria. (Photo, circa 2020s.)

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

Women are being raped in their sleep by their partners, filmed and shared online without ever knowing, writes Rebecca Jayde.

* CONTENT WARNING: This article discusses rape

WHAT WE ARE collectively grappling with is how to put into words a crime, betrayal and trauma that we are still trying to process the existence of. Women are being raped in their sleep by their partners. Filmed and shared online without ever knowing.

These crimes are categorically different from other forms of intimate partner violence. Most abuse, even when hidden, leaves traces that the victim can feel. Confusion, walking on eggshells, fear. This form leaves nothing. The victim's experience of her own life is entirely intact because her experience of her own life is not the site of the crime. Her unconscious body is.

We have been taught to fear strangers, and we are used to systematic inequities. And more recently, we are taught to look for red flags from intimate partners. Because you can see red flags, right? They are obvious patterns of behaviour that hopefully make you think twice about the person you have chosen to be with.

But what happens when you become a victim of the person you love without even knowing you are one?

The world learned about this through Gisèle Pelicot. But what the world is discovering with horrific speed is that this is not an isolated nor rare case. Research is coming slowly; one study of 306 sexual assaults in Madrid between 2010 and 2012 found that a third, or 107, might be cases of chemical submission. It appears that this has been right under our noses for a long time.

A CNN expose (2026) draws attention to a woman in Italy, Valentina, who found out her husband of 20 years had been drugging her, assaulting her, filming it, and sharing it online. Twenty years of a life built together, and underneath it, something so incompatible with love that it almost breaks the mind to hold both truths at once.

Valentina said:

“In the end, that’s what I was — slaughterhouse meat.”

It’s hard to read that and not feel sick. But it's also hard to realise this:

There are so many women in these situations out there who currently don’t even know it’s happening.

They’re living ordinary lives. Making dinner. Going to bed. Maybe feeling something is off, but not knowing what. And while they sleep, videos of their unconscious bodies are being violated and watched and shared by strangers.

Not once. Repeatedly. Sometimes in real time. This isn’t a single moment of trauma with a clear before and after. It’s ongoing, hidden. A violation that exists without their awareness...until one day they are confronted with the god-awful truth.

And if they do find out, it’s not one betrayal. It’s all of them at once. The partner. The filming. The sharing. The audience. The knowledge that while they were living their life in the sanctuary of their own home, their most intimate violation is being consumed as entertainment.

And yet, this is not just a handful of rogue men, an aberration, but rather some kind of movement. There are entire online spaces where this behaviour is normalised, encouraged, even taught. Where harm becomes a form of belonging. It has been built. Deliberately, methodically, with the kind of organisational architecture we usually associate with legitimate communities.

There are categories and subcategories. There is a vocabulary, such as tags that function as a filing system for specific types of violations, terms that regulars understand and newcomers quickly learn. There are threads dedicated to technique, to dosage, or how to position a body. How to film without detection.

There are men offering advice to other men, the way you might find advice in any hobbyist forum: helpfully, with the accumulated knowledge of someone who has done this many times and wants to help others do it better. There is encouragement and praise. There is a whole ecosystem of affirmation that transforms what should be an act of profound shame into something that feels, within those walls, like expertise. Like they haven’t considered that it’s wrong. More like achievement. Definitely like belonging.

That is what a pedagogy of rape looks like when it moves online. And it’s not hidden nearly as well as we’d like to believe.

These women haven’t consented. That’s the point. Their lack of awareness is somehow part of the appeal of the whole thing. And most of them are still unaware. Many women are reading the articles and the posts online and thinking, 'Not my man.' In this way, we hear echoes of the famous disclaimer, 'Not all men.' 

How could we comprehend our own partner being a monster? These men are not presenting as monsters. They are presenting as husbands. As loving fathers. As ordinary people.

The cognitive dissonance required to hold 'this person makes me coffee in the morning' and 'this person drugged and raped me last night' is almost neurologically impossible without external evidence forcing it. Even then, it will take years to unpack. That's not naivety. That's how human attachment works. And these men know it.

Because the secrecy is the point. These men trade tips about how to evade detection. How to use medication to stupefy women with a short half-life, meaning that, unlike traditional sedation methods used for drink spiking in the past, it is harder to detect as it leaves the body far more quickly.

The other problem is that if medics are unaware of what they are looking for in toxicology tests, then victims may not be screened correctly for detection. These are not crimes of impulse. They are crimes of planning. The choice of medication is deliberate and selected not for effect alone but for disappearance.

Imagine, just for a moment, the long-term repercussions on the physical health of victims from the drugs alone, especially in cases of repeated exposure or a combination of substances. By the time a woman wakes, feels wrong, considers seeking help, ignores the gaslighting from her partner, and builds the courage to go to a clinic or a police station, the evidence has already left her body. The crime has been designed to consume its own proof.

But there is something these men may not have accounted for. Hair remembers.

Segmental hair analysis is a forensic method that examines sections of a hair strand by strand and can identify patterns of drug exposure over weeks or even months. Hair grows approximately one centimetre per month, and as it grows, it traps chemical traces that blood and urine cannot hold onto. Depending on hair length, analysis can potentially reach back considerably further than the narrow windows toxicology screens typically cover.

And yet this is by no means yet mainstream or standardised. It is not routinely offered by emergency departments to women presenting with suspected assault. In these initial hours after the assault, it is too early for the hair to have absorbed the chemicals. It is also not consistently requested by police. In many cases, it is not even on the list of possibilities discussed.

There has been some success when used in the courtroom to secure convictions. Yet, the forensic capability has outpaced the institutional will to use it, meaning the gap between suspicion and proof, the gap these crimes are specifically designed to exploit, remains open not because the tools don't exist but because the systems haven't caught up.

If you cannot point to a single night, but something in your body is telling you that something is wrong, then this test is worth knowing about and worth asking for specifically. By name. Because in many cases, no one will offer it unprompted.

That may be the most important sentence in this piece. The only sliver of hope we have.

So beneath all the statistics, this is what remains: somewhere tonight, a woman will fall asleep beside someone she trusts. And that trust is the very thing being used against her. That’s the part we don’t yet know how to hold.

How do we help victims who don't even know they are one yet?

Because it’s not just about working out how to bring these horrendous men to justice in the legal system. It's about what it means to be betrayed in the most visceral, soul-destroying way by someone you have willingly let into every corner of your life. It’s about what it means to live in a world where some bodies are still treated as consumable.

And how close that reality can be. Closer than we want to believe.

If this article has raised any issues for you, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or
1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or online at 1800RESPECT.org.au. 

Rebecca Jayde is a coach and facilitator as well as a published writer with postgraduate training in communication, education and trauma theory.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor's immigration plan is a Trump‑like trick that will narrow market freedom and entrench corporate power, argues Professor Carl Rhodes. 

When Angus Taylor announced his new immigration plan on 14 April, he received a torrent of backlash from across the political spectrum. The response was unsurprising given that, in the name of "Australian values", he directly attacked migrants, prompting accusations ranging from un-Australian to racist.

We have thrown open our borders to “people who… have wanted to take from Australia and even change Australia to suit them,”  he declared in his address to the Menzies Research Centre before reverting to the familiar refrain of blaming Labor for having “opened the migration floodgates”.

It was a ham-fisted attempt at rabble-rousing populism, although the only person who appeared genuinely roused was One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, who promptly claimed credit for the policy. Unperturbed, Taylor doubled down in an op-ed in the Australian Financial Review and on radio 2GB.

Taylor’s immigration policy was rightly condemned as ‘Trumpian', marked not only by the stigmatisation of minorities and heavy‑handed deportation plans, but by its reliance on moral panic, simplistic blame, and performative toughness over workable policy. Even Liberal Party MPs were dismayed, with one calling it “rank populism” and “copying Trump”.

But what made the speech truly Trump‑like was not immigration alone. It was the way border control was paired with an economic agenda that invokes "freedom" while shielding concentrated corporate power, with predictable consequences for inequality. It is this vision of business and markets that deserves closer scrutiny.

A free market fantasy

Taylor was explicit that reducing immigration was only part of the solution. To “restore Australians' standard of living” and “protect our way of life”, he argued, Australia must shift “away from Labor’s government‑directed economy back to a free‑enterprise economy”.

In Taylor’s telling, the villains are as familiar as his performative toughness, he asserted, lest Australians be robbed of the "freedom"  he claimed as being at the core of his political agenda:

“It’s time to take back control from the technocrats, the bureaucrats and the activists.”

This language is part of a well‑worn populist script that frames economic problems as the product of elite interference rather than structural market failure and entrenched concentrations of economic power.

Taylor proposed three simple strategies to place Australians on the path to restored economic greatness, each expressed in a three-word slogan. They are “removing crippling taxes”, “reducing choking regulation”, and “restoring cheaper power”.

When it comes to business, his thinking is as doctrinaire and ill‑conceived as his immigration policy. The problem is not that these measures would fail to help business; it is that they would do nothing to revitalise a genuinely free market economy.

What they would do is reduce business costs and increase profitability, especially at the big end of town. What they would not do is increase competition in an economy already dominated by highly concentrated industries.

This is where Taylor’s free market rhetoric becomes most unmistakably Trumpian. Like Trump, he equates "freedom" with the removal of constraints on capital, while remaining conspicuously silent on the question of market power. Competition, the very thing that makes markets work, drops out of the story while the structural conditions that entrench inequality are left untouched.

Markets rule where they should serve

Virtually all major industry sectors in Australia are oligopolistic. There are four major banks, three dominant telecommunications firms, two supermarket chains controlling most grocery sales, just two major domestic airlines and mining is dominated by a handful of giants. Taylor’s plan would do nothing to alter this structural reality.

If Taylor were to implement his proposed economic agenda, the result would most likely be windfall corporate gains, rather than any meaningful renewal of market competition.

Lower taxes, weaker regulation, and cheaper energy may lift profits at the top end of town, but they do little to challenge entrenched market power or to improve outcomes for consumers and workers already struggling under an inflation‑driven cost‑of‑living crisis.

Freeing up competition is a laudable goal. But it would require a far more ambitious agenda than Taylor is offering. Serious competition reform would mean robustly enforced competition law, the breakup of oligopolies, and the lowering of barriers to entry in concentrated industries. It would also mean confronting those who benefit most from the current market structure, rather than shielding them.

Encouraging real investment, intensifying competitive pressure, and supporting productivity growth would do far more to revitalise the economy and distribute its gains more broadly. What Taylor proposes instead is a program that stabilises and extends the power of the status quo, allowing markets to rule where they should serve.

Protecting the powerful

If free-market competition is truly the objective, then the power of dominant firms must be constrained, not bolstered. That would mean serious competition policy, effective antitrust enforcement, and a willingness to challenge incumbents. These requirements appear well beyond what Taylor and his policy advisers are prepared to contemplate, or even acknowledge.

The Trump‑like trick is to sell this agenda as "freedom" while it protects the economically powerful. Free markets do not emerge by dismantling the state and stepping aside. They depend on rules that curb dominance, enable entry, and ensure that competitiveness determines success.

By cutting constraints while protecting incumbents, Taylor’s agenda does not revive market freedom. It narrows it. What is sold as economic freedom is, in reality, the quiet entrenchment of corporate power dressed up as reform.

Carl Rhodes is Professor of Business and Society at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has written several books on the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism. You can follow him on X/Twitter @ProfCarlRhodes. 

Niseko has earned its reputation as one of the most compelling property investment destinations in the Asia-Pacific region.

The combination of world-class skiing, consistent snowfall, a growing international visitor base, and limited developable land has created a real estate market that attracts serious buyers from Japan, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong and beyond.

What makes Niseko genuinely unusual is that its appeal is no longer purely seasonal. Summer tourism has grown substantially over the past decade, transforming the region into a year-round destination, with hiking, cycling, hot springs and culinary tourism driving visitor numbers well outside the traditional ski window.

For property investors, that extended season translates to longer rental periods, stronger annual yield potential and a more resilient income base than a purely winter-dependent market can offer.

The challenge for most international buyers is not finding the right property. It is managing that property effectively once they own it, from thousands of kilometres away, across language barriers, in a regulatory environment that differs meaningfully from their home market.

Getting that management piece right is what separates a Niseko investment that performs as expected from one that becomes a source of ongoing stress and underperformance.

Understanding the Niseko property market

Property values in the Niseko area, which encompasses Hirafu, Hanazono, Higashiyama and Annupuri, have appreciated significantly over the past two decades. Foreign investor interest, infrastructure investment by international hotel brands and the consistent international recognition of Niseko's snow quality have all contributed to a resilient market.

The rental yield picture is equally attractive for properties managed well. Ski season nightly rates for quality properties in central Hirafu command premium pricing, particularly during peak January and February periods when occupancy is close to complete.

Properties that extend their offering into the shoulder seasons and summer can achieve occupancy across eight to nine months of the year rather than the three to four that a pure ski-season strategy produces.

Understanding occupancy patterns, pricing seasonality and the specific characteristics of different Niseko zones requires market knowledge that most international investors do not arrive with. Building that knowledge, or delegating to people who already have it, is the foundational management decision.

The remote management challenge

Managing a short-term rental property in Japan from overseas involves layers of complexity that are easy to underestimate before you are inside them.

Language is the most immediately obvious barrier. Japanese property management contracts, owner association communications, tax filings and utility arrangements are all conducted in Japanese. Relying on translation tools for complex legal and financial documents introduces error risk that the value of a Niseko property does not justify.

Regulatory compliance adds another layer. Japan's minpaku law governs short-term rental accommodation and imposes licensing requirements, maximum rental days in certain zones, and specific guest management obligations. The specific rules applicable to a given property depend on its location and classification.

International investors who manage their properties without local support frequently encounter compliance issues that could have been avoided with proper guidance.

Property maintenance in a high-snowfall environment requires proactive, year-round attention. Roof loading, pipe insulation, heating system maintenance, and snow clearing are all seasonal operational requirements that demand reliable local contractors and active oversight.

A property that is not properly maintained through the Hokkaido winter accumulates issues that become expensive to rectify and directly affect guest experience and review scores.

Tax obligations for foreign property owners in Japan include property acquisition tax, fixed asset tax and income tax on rental earnings. The interaction between Japanese tax obligations and the investor's home country's tax rules adds further complexity that benefits from specialist advice.

Building your remote management team

The most practical approach to managing a Niseko property from overseas is to build a small but reliable local team rather than attempting to handle individual functions independently.

A local property management company with specific Niseko experience is the most important relationship to establish. Quality Niseko property managers handle guest bookings, check-in, and check-out coordination, cleaning and linen management, maintenance coordination, and regulatory compliance on behalf of owners.

Their local market knowledge also informs pricing decisions across seasons, which has a direct impact on annual rental yield.

When evaluating property management companies, ask specifically about their management fee structure, their approach to pricing during peak and shoulder seasons, how they communicate with owners and their track record with comparable properties.

A management company that manages fifty properties in Hirafu brings data-driven pricing insight that a smaller operator cannot match.

A local accountant who specialises in foreign property ownership in Japan handles tax filing obligations efficiently and ensures that owners are not overpaying through ignorance of applicable deductions. This relationship pays for itself quickly and removes a genuine compliance risk from the picture.

Maximising rental performance from a distance

Rental performance optimisation is an area where remote owners are particularly vulnerable to leaving money on the table.

Dynamic pricing, meaning adjusting nightly rates in response to demand signals, competitor pricing, local events and booking lead times, can meaningfully improve annual revenue compared to static rate setting. Quality property management companies do this as a matter of course.

Owners who manage their own listings from overseas rarely have the market visibility to price dynamically and effectively.

Guest experience directly drives review scores, which drives future booking conversion rates, which drives occupancy. For a property managed remotely, every element of the guest experience is delivered through the local management team and the systems the owner has put in place.

Investing in quality property photography, well-written listing copy and clear property information for guests all contribute to review performance in ways that compound over time.

Platforms matter too. International listing platforms including Airbnb, Vrbo and specialist Japan-focused rental platforms each serve different segments of the Niseko visitor market. A property listed only on one platform is missing a portion of its potential demand.

Management companies with multi-platform listing capability capture a broader demand base and typically achieve higher annual occupancy as a result.

Choosing the right accommodation benchmark

Understanding how your property performs relative to comparable accommodation in the Niseko market requires ongoing familiarity with what else is available to guests.

Exploring the full range of Niseko accommodation through Villa Finder gives investors a clear picture of the competitive landscape their property sits within, including the pricing, amenity standards, and positioning of comparable villas and chalets in the area.

That market context is essential for making informed decisions about property improvements, pricing strategy and the platform positioning that will attract the guest profile your property is designed to serve.

The Niseko luxury accommodation market has elevated its standards consistently over the past decade, with new-build properties and refurbished chalets raising the benchmark for what discerning guests expect.

Investors whose properties fall behind on key amenity metrics, such as private onsen, ski-in ski-out access, or high-quality kitchen and entertainment facilities, will find that gap reflected in pricing ceiling and occupancy rates relative to newer competition.

The long-term perspective

Niseko property ownership rewards a long-term perspective. The market has historically appreciated through economic cycles, the international appeal of the destination shows no sign of diminishing, and Japan's infrastructure investment in the broader Hokkaido region is expected to expand as the country positions itself for continued growth in inbound tourism.

Managing that investment well from a distance is entirely achievable with the right team, the right tools and the right information.

The owners who perform best in this market are not necessarily those who are closest physically. They are the ones who have built the most reliable local network, stay most actively informed about the market they are in, and make the most consistent decisions about their property's positioning and performance.

The distance between where you live and where your Niseko property sits is a logistical detail. With the right management infrastructure around it, it does not need to be an obstacle.

In an era where book-to-film adaptations are often met with scepticism, Project Hail Mary arrives with something rare: expectation rather than apprehension, writes Michael Gibbons.

STARRING RYAN GOSLING and based on the bestselling novel by Andy Weir, the 2026 release of Project Hail Mary is one of the most anticipated science fiction adaptations in recent memory. And with good reason. For once, the question isn’t whether the film can live up to the book. It’s whether it can capture the experience.

Because Project Hail Mary isn’t just a great novel, it’s a phenomenon across formats.

Like many readers, I came to the story through the book in 2025, drawn in by its blend of hard science, humour and emotional depth. But unlike most adaptations, this one arrived with a second layer of expectation: its reputation as an outstanding audiobook. Narrated by Ray Porter, the audio version has been widely praised for transforming an already compelling story into something immersive and immediate.

There is still a lingering debate among purists about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. But in a time-poor world, that argument feels increasingly outdated. Whether it’s podcasts, short-form video or digital books, the way we consume stories has evolved. If anything, audiobooks have expanded access. They allow people to engage with complex material while commuting, exercising or simply navigating daily life.

That evolution, however, isn’t just cultural. It’s also commercial.

Despite its popularity, the Project Hail Mary audiobook has remained largely tied to Audible, a move that feels designed to keep listeners within a single ecosystem. As someone who primarily uses Spotify, I found myself waiting for it to appear there, particularly since Spotify introduced audiobook listening hours into its Premium tiers.

So far, apart from a foreign language version, it still hasn’t materialised. It’s a small frustration, but a telling one. Access to stories is no longer just about format. It’s about platform, subscription and strategy.

And yet, the demand remains.

Across online communities, particularly sci-fi forums and fan groups, Ray Porter’s narration is often described as elevating the material, bringing clarity to the dense science and adding emotional weight to the experience. For some, it even makes the difference between struggling through the text and fully connecting with it.

In that context, Project Hail Mary exists as a rare three-part success: novel, audiobook and now film.

And remarkably, the film holds up.

My reaction after seeing it was simple: this is one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations in recent memory. Inevitably, there are omissions. Entire passages of scientific explanation are condensed and some subplots, particularly those dealing with Earth-bound attempts to solve the looming crisis, are reduced or removed entirely. But these are necessary sacrifices when translating a dense, 500-page novel into a two-and-a-half-hour cinematic experience.

What remains intact is what matters most: the relationship between Ryland Grace and Rocky. It is the emotional and narrative core of the story, and the film understands that completely. In preserving that dynamic, the adaptation succeeds where many others fail. It identifies what must stay. Not what can be cut.

History is littered with examples of adaptations that didn’t make those choices as carefully. Fans still lament the absence of Peeves in the Harry Potter films, originally brought to life by Rik Mayall, or the omission of Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Meanwhile, Contact, adapted from Carl Sagan’s novel, took significant narrative liberties, resulting in two versions of the same story that feel fundamentally different, yet equally valid.

That tension between fidelity and interpretation sits at the heart of every adaptation. Some authors have famously rejected the film versions of their work, as noted by IndieWire, including The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. Others, like Michael Ende, even objected to how their stories concluded on screen — a particularly ironic footnote in the case of The NeverEnding Story.

But perhaps that’s the point.

Adaptations are not meant to replace the original. They are reinterpretations shaped by different media, constraints and creative voices. Where a book invites imagination, a film presents a definitive version. For some, that clash is jarring. For others, it’s part of the appeal.

Personally, I fall into the latter camp. I enjoy the differences. The tension between what I imagined and what appears on screen is not a flaw. It’s part of the experience.

There are, broadly, two ways to approach adaptations: read the book first or watch the film first. Both have their advantages. When I watched The Martian before reading the novel, the visual framework made the science easier to process. With Project Hail Mary, I did it the other way around. While I loved seeing the story realised on screen, the lack of surprises inevitably dulled some of the impact.

That may be the film’s only real limitation. Its faithfulness is its strength, but also, in a strange way, its constraint.

For those who haven’t read the book – particularly those who avoid trailers and spoilers – the experience will likely be far more powerful. For them, the film doesn’t just adapt the story. It delivers it.

And that may ultimately define its legacy.

Because if Project Hail Mary proves anything, it’s that great adaptations don’t need to reinvent their source material. They just need to understand it.

And in doing so, it positions itself comfortably alongside modern science fiction standouts like Interstellar, Arrival and Ex Machina, films that respect their audience’s intelligence and the integrity of their ideas.

Michael Gibbons is an Australian writer with a Bachelor of Arts (with Distinction) majoring in Screen and Cultural Studies.

A sweeping exploration of fatherhood in Australia, from policy and history to deeply personal memory, revealing how much has changed and how much still hasn’t. Jim Kable reviews Fathering: An Australian History.

FATHERING IS A much-needed addition to the literature of parenting in Australia, focusing on the aspect of fathers and of being fathers. It runs from those born in the latter part of the 19th Century to references up to 2025, the year of its publication.

The book features interviews with Australians about their fathers (of both sons and daughters), of men who are fathers through the generations covered, of those born here or from elsewhere. But the most moving and ultimately most impressive, of fathers from First Australians backgrounds, of tragedy and of triumph against the very worst of the culturally genocidal and racist policies of the colonialist era, continuing, some would argue, till today.

(With thanks to Peter Read and John Maynard, among others, for the sharing of their expertise on these matters.)

And on to these days of Bluey and her family – and especially of her Dad and the portrayal of his fathering vis-à-vis Homer of The Simpsons or Peppa Pig's father – both fall-guy incompetents – and of the COVID-19 times, and of the latest contemporary iteration of the “new” father (beginning in the post-Great War 1920s), and of contemporary “new” dads “at home” (the negotiating of parenting — who, how and when) in the light of government policy and family support, or its lack.

From Harvester Judgment and its “male breadwinner” model, through the achievement of equal pay in 1975 and the dismantling of the so-called family wage, to the expansion of income support, childcare and parental leave, Australia’s policy landscape has evolved significantly — yet mothers still bear the greatest burden of parenting, household labour and the cost to their careers.

Following an Acknowledgements section and a note on punctuation/first-person accounts, there is the first of 15 “portraits” spread throughout the book and an important introduction.

This is followed by five parts:

1. Fathering between the Wars (1919-1939);
2. Fathering in WWII and Postwar Reconstruction (1940-1949);
3. Fathering in Prosperous Times (1950-1972);
4. Fathering in Turbulent Times (1973-1995); and
5. Fathering into the Twenty-First Century 1996-).

Then it finishes with a summarising and a looking-forward Afterword. Almost 400 pages. Then follows a copious and meticulous section of Notes, References and an Index covering a further 65 pages.

The book invites a great deal of reflection from the reader. Let this reviewer do so as one who was born in the final year of Part II, both my parents in the middle years of Part I — their parents at the end of the 19th Century and around the turn of the 20th Century.

My beloved maternal grandfather was the second-last of 16 born in rural Kent; his father, then 50, had been born in 1843; his mother ten years later. His formal education lasted till he was 11. After some rural labouring and work on the railways, he arrived in Western Australia in 1912, not quite 19. Living a year in Wickepin, he decided to return to England, but working his passage, arrived in Sydney first where there was lots of work, building a green at the Mosman Bowling Club, on the construction of the new Helensburgh Railway Station, and finally in flour milling in Botany.

With the outbreak of the Great War, he was unable to enlist until later in 1915 when the minimum height limit was waived and he served with the AIF in France and Flanders. He suffered the near-inevitable gunshot wound (GSW) and shrapnel wounds and in late 1917 was repatriated back to his Sydney sweetheart and marriage, and her death in childbirth — the child a day later.

He later met my grandmother, whose mother had died of consumption in 1905 before she had turned three, and her father (out of a beef and dairy pioneering family from 1860s Fiji) when she was seven, thereafter raised by one of her mother’s sisters and husband, a shop-owning family in Camperdown/Newtown, till her marriage. My mother was the third child, the first girl, of eight.

She, in turn, became a kind of mother to her younger ones and speaks of often missing school to stay home and assist her asthmatic mother. In fact, though her teacher pleaded with her parents that she be permitted to stay on at school, at age 14, her father pulled her out of school to go into Domestic Service with his boss’s household.

She would only go on to get married. That was her fate. Her father’s reasoning. There was some later work in restaurants in the city, but after her marriage, two children and widowhood at 21, cleaning and housekeeping became her means, especially beyond the compensation case and with her eventual remarriage to what I can only describe as a war-damaged man who became my bullying stepfather.

It was only when I was in my 50s that my mother told me that my rakishly dark-complexioned, good-looking father – unusually for the times – would carry me around and refuse to hand me over to any of the aunts clamouring to take me. That I was his, he would say. I did not take my first steps till I was 16 months old, my little brother then a month old.

I was hoping to be lifted up by my Dad. And then he was gone. His father was the seventh of nine; two older siblings had already passed away in the mid-1880s in Cobar. He was born in 1890 in what was soon to become Parkes. A little chap. Some reading between the lines of family stories suggests bullying from older brothers.

His own father had lost his mother before he was one, the 15th and last child born, and raised by a big brother and wife, his father gone anyway by the time he was six. He enlisted in 1916, again with the minimum height requirement abolished — he was only five feet tall. He met his wife while recuperating from a GSW in the Scottish Borders, where she was a teacher. They married just before he was repatriated; she followed him to Australia by May of 1919.

Their child, my father, was the younger of fraternal twins; their birth in 1927 made a total of six siblings. My maternal grandfather, though a man laying down the parental law as he understood it, was loved by his children and even more so by his grandchildren, and lived till he was 91. As, too, my grandmother.

And with them I stayed when aged 11 at the end of my primary schooling and again during my first annual vacation while at university, aged 17. And listened to some of their stories, or was otherwise looked after. It was this grandmother, with support from my grandfather, who sent to me sets of encyclopaedia, of classical literature, a world atlas as encouragement towards my educational success.

I stayed with my paternal grandparents, too, when I was 11. Both sets of grandparents were then, in fact, fairly close neighbours. My Scottish grandmother began telling me stories of my father and of her illustrious ancestral connections, at which my grandfather chimed in with his tales. And though he had me help him in his vegetable gardens in a nearby shaded glen, he would also, for no reason that I could discern, pinch and twist my upper arm. I somehow knew not to react. What was it about? I have no idea, but years later, when I told my mother about it, she said she had seen him do likewise to his wife at the dinner table.

And my Scottish granny had pretended not to notice, too. There were stories from his twin sister that their father would beat my father, another little chap, and my granny, too, if she intervened. His war neurosis would see him maudlin — playing mournful harmonica and setting out on gold fossicking journeys in the NSW mid-west. Those times and the period in the NT during WWII, his family back in Sydney counted as their happiest, his presence clearly creating a lot of stress and tension.  

I taught at all levels for many years in Japan. From age 40, more or less, to my retirement aged 60. Among the first questions always asked by new classes in our “getting-to-know-you” first lessons was “How many children do you have?”

I think back on it now and marvel that I knew right away how to answer as I did: “Well… there were three! A girl and (fraternal) twin boys. All three prematurely stillborn.”

When the meaning sank in, there were sad faces all around. How to rescue the moment? “But my wife and I have some nephews and nieces. And several godchildren (explanations of those terms) and all my past students, too, back in Australia and here in Japan — including you all, too. You are “my” children (their own parents not disregarded), my paedagogical children.”

My little brother had two children. I observe his son with his own two little chaps, whom he shares with their mother, a former partner. He has the boys half the week, more or less, Friday after school till Monday morning — it can vary during school holiday times when he might take them away. He is very much “with them”: visits to the local animal sanctuary or sporting practice, interviews with the school, and he enjoys a very easy relationship with them. Preparing their meals. Reading to them at bedtime. On visits, I have never seen any dramas or tantrums. I am very impressed. 

And then, of course, there is for me being a mentor. My 77th birthday is the month after next. There is almost not a day that goes by when I am not in touch with one of our/my students, or with our godchildren this side of the equator or the other side, or with others.

My own childhood mentor was my mother’s long-term employer, whose birthday, fortuitously, was the same as my own. And who took a serious interest in me, my school reports and my future. Letters and gifts alerting me to the wider world, books and stamps were a part of that. And gone just about the time I turned 18. Suddenly. Never forgotten.

I thank Melbourne University Publishing and the authors of Fathering for the opportunity to read this fine book and for the opportunity to think deeply about the various ways in which fathering has been, is being and can be manifested.

Fathering: An Australian History by Alistair Thomson, John Murphy, Kate Murphy, Johnny Bell and Jill Barnard is published by Melbourne University Publishing. 

This book was reviewed by an IA Book Club member. If you would like to receive free high-quality books and have your review published on IA, subscribe to receive your complimentary IA Book Club membership.

Jim Kable is a retired teacher who has taught in rural and metropolitan NSW, in Europe, and later, long-term in Japan.

The latest head to roll? Only the skipper of the U.S. Navy!

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

War should never be an executive reflex — it demands democratic consent, because those who pay the price deserve a voice before the first shot is fired, writes Dr Adriano Tedde.

LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD are increasingly normalising the prospect of war and urging societies to prepare for it.

Since 2022, rearmament, conscription debates and war statements have intensified across Europe following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Rather than prioritising diplomatic pathways to end a war on their doorstep, European institutions have largely doubled down on military support, echoing the Roman saying si vis pacem, para bellum — if you want peace, prepare for war.

At the same time, global instability appears to be widening. As Peace Nobel candidate Donald Trump has expanded conflict theatres with attacks in Latin America and the Middle East, global public opinion is focused on war. In such a climate, war is no longer understood as an exception, but as a likely feature of international politics.

In these moments, a familiar set of voices takes centre stage. Experts in geopolitics, strategy and military affairs talk of shifts in the balance of great powers. Their analyses are indispensable in helping policymakers and the public understand the dynamics of conflict. Yet, they rarely address a more fundamental question: how can war be prevented, rather than managed?

As Leo Tolstoy suggests in War and Peace, one can pursue the causes of conflict through rigorous scientific inquiry indefinitely, but no explanation will ever justify war’s human tragedy. More recently, psychologist James Hillman argued in A Terrible Love of War (2004) that war is so deeply embedded in the human experience that it escapes rational understanding. War, in his account, is “inhuman” — something that transcends human reason, even as we attempt to analyse it.

If this is the case, there is value in shifting how we frame war. Rather than treating it solely as a strategic or technical subject, it can be understood as a question of social justice. Such a reframing doesn’t replace geopolitical analysis but complements it by highlighting the human and societal consequences of organised violence.

This change in how we perceive and study war matters because public debate often abstracts war into strategic competition, deterrence models and military capability. These concepts can obscure war’s everyday reality. In a neoliberal economy marked by precarity, many citizens are more immediately concerned with economic survival than with geopolitical abstractions.

Even today’s angry, impoverished nationalist constituencies are not preoccupied with fighting the foreign enemy more than making ends meet, as MAGA supporters’ anti-war sentiment seems to confirm.

At its core, war remains a profoundly unequal enterprise. Decisions to use force are taken by a narrow segment of political leadership, while their costs are borne collectively and disproportionately by those who fight – often the least privileged segments of society – and those who live in conflict zones.

The oft-attributed quotation, linked to poets Paul Valéry or Pablo Neruda, captures this asymmetry:

“War is the massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other, but don’t kill one another.”

If war is understood in these terms, then its prevention becomes not only a strategic objective, but a democratic imperative. To paraphrase the Roman saying: si vis pacem, para democratiam — if you want peace, prepare democracy, as argued by Italian constitutionalist Gustavo Zagrebelsky.

For Australia, this principle has direct policy relevance. Recent proposals to reform war powers advanced by the Australian Greens would require parliamentary approval before deploying the Australian Defence Force into armed conflict. The rationale is straightforward: decisions of such magnitude should not rest exclusively with the executive. Parliamentary scrutiny would introduce debate, transparency and accountability into the decision-making process, aligning the use of force more closely with democratic consent.

This is not a radical proposition, nor would it constrain Australia’s ability to act in its national interest. Rather, it would strengthen legitimacy and public debate and ensure that decisions to go to war are subject to the same standards of deliberation expected in other areas of public policy.  

Additional measures could reinforce this logic. Targeted taxation of windfall profits in the weapon and energy sectors during wartime, or stronger regulatory oversight, if not nationalisation of those sectors. This could help address the economic incentives that accompany prolonged conflict. Such policies, however, depend on robust democratic institutions capable of acting independently of concentrated economic interests, restoring the primacy of the common good over profit.

In a strategic environment increasingly defined by the anticipation of conflict, middle powers such as Australia face a choice. They can align uncritically with prevailing narratives of militarisation, or they can seek to shape alternative approaches grounded in democratic accountability and the rule of law.

Requiring parliamentary approval for war would not eliminate the risk of global conflict. But it would represent a meaningful step towards accountability and transparency in momentous decisions. More broadly, it would signal a shift in how war is understood — not only as a techno-geopolitical matter of strategy, but as an issue grounded in social justice.

In an era of renewed great power competition, preparing for peace does not require only military readiness, but democratic determination.

Dr Adriano Tedde is a former diplomat and lecturer in Strategic and American Studies at Deakin University.

Learn how IT managers in Australia can support data-heavy applications with the right infrastructure, performance, scalability and data locality planning.

PERFORMANCE these days mean how efficiently systems handle massive volumes of data in real time. Choosing the right advance server setup early can prevent bottlenecks, reduce long-term costs and ensure consistent user experience. 

In Australia, where geography, latency and compliance play a unique role, infrastructure planning needs a more deliberate approach.

What makes an application data-heavy?

Not every large application is data-heavy, but certain patterns signal higher infrastructure demands:

• continuous data ingestion (such as analytics platforms and IoT systems);
• high read/write database operations;
• real-time processing requirements (such as fintech dashboards, gaming engines);
• large media storage and delivery (such as streaming platforms); and
• complex back-end pipelines like ELT pipelines and workload orchestration.

These applications often rely on optimised data partitioning strategies, schema evolution and columnar compression to stay efficient, but infrastructure still plays the deciding role in performance.

Performance starts with the right compute power

At the core of high-performance infrastructure in Australia is compute efficiency.

Key considerations

• Dedicated vs Shared environments

Shared environments reduce cost but may introduce unpredictable latency. Dedicated infrastructure in Australia ensures consistent performance, especially for mission-critical workloads.

• Bare metal vs Virtualised environments

Bare metal advance server in  Australia offer direct hardware access, ideal for high I/O workloads and predictable performance. Virtual machines add flexibility but can introduce overhead.

For applications where milliseconds matter, bare metal or dedicated setups often justify their cost through improved performance and reliability.

Storage speed, I/O and database health

Storage is often the silent bottleneck in database performance hosting.

Prioritise:

• high I/O servers in Australia for faster read/write operations;
• NVMe-based storage over traditional SSDs; and
• optimised indexing and metadata management.

Why?

• slow disk speeds can cripple query performance;
• inefficient storage leads to delays in ETL/ELT pipelines; and
• high I/O capacity ensures smoother concurrent operations.

For data-intensive workloads, storage speed directly impacts user experience, especially in analytics-heavy platforms.

Data locality and low latency in Australia

Australia’s geographic spread introduces unique latency challenges.

Key factors:

• data locality optimisation ensures users access data from the nearest possible server;
• local hosting supports compliance requirements in sectors like fintech and healthcare; and
• reduced latency improves application responsiveness.

For enterprises targeting Australian users, enterprise hosting in Australia with local data centers is often a strategic necessity, not just a performance upgrade.

Bandwidth, traffic peaks and growth planning

Data-heavy applications rarely have steady traffic.

Plan

• sudden spikes (e-commerce sales, gaming events);
• high bandwidth server in Australia for requirements for media or real-time apps; and
• future growth, traffic doubling within months is not uncommon.

Strategic approach

• use scalable server infrastructure in Australia to handle demand fluctuations; and
• avoid over-provisioning, balance elasticity with cost governance.

Bandwidth constraints can quickly become performance bottlenecks if not planned in advance.

Supporting data pipelines and back-end operations

Beyond front-end performance, back-end operations demand equal attention.

Infrastructure must support:

• ELT pipelines and batch processing;
• workload orchestration and resource scheduling; and
• data catalog systems for structured access.

Separating live application workloads from back-end jobs improves stability. This is where a well-configured advance server environment with workload isolation can make a measurable difference.

Cost control without cutting the wrong corners

Cost optimisation is important, but cutting the wrong components can backfire.

Where NOT to compromise:

• storage speed;
• network bandwidth; and
• dedicated compute for critical workloads.

Where optimisation works:

• tiered storage strategies;
• autoscaling of non-critical services; and
• efficient data partitioning.

A balanced approach ensures cost governance without sacrificing performance.

What IT managers should ask before choosing infrastructure?

Before finalising any setup, decision-makers should evaluate:

• How much data does the app process each day?
• Are there traffic spikes during certain hours or seasons?
• Does the app need local hosting for speed or compliance?
• Will shared resources hurt performance?
• How important are storage speed and high I/O?
• What happens if usage doubles in the next 12 months?
• Can the setup support both live app traffic and back-end data jobs?

These questions help align infrastructure decisions with real-world usage patterns, not assumptions.

Conclusion: Build for stability, speed and growth

Supporting data-heavy applications in Australia requires more than just scaling servers. It demands a clear understanding of workload behavior, data flow and performance dependencies.

From compute and storage to bandwidth and locality, every layer influences outcomes. The goal isn’t to overbuild, but to build intelligently.

FAQs

1. What infrastructure is best for data-heavy applications in Australia?

Dedicated or bare metal setups are often preferred due to predictable performance, especially for high I/O and low-latency requirements.

2. Why is data locality important in Australia?

Local hosting reduces latency and helps meet compliance requirements, particularly in regulated industries.

3. How do I handle traffic spikes efficiently?

Use scalable server infrastructure Australia with autoscaling capabilities and sufficient bandwidth planning.

4. What’s the biggest mistake in infrastructure planning?

Underestimating storage and I/O requirements. Many systems fail due to slow data access rather than lack of compute power.

Why the right tools matter

Whether you are a day trader scalping pips, or a long-term position trader riding macro trends, the tools you use define how well you can read the market, manage your exposure, and time your entries and exits. The good news is that many of the best resources are freely available or bundled into modern trading platforms. The challenge is knowing which ones to use — and when.

Trading platforms and charting software

At the heart of any trader's toolkit is a reliable trading platform. MetaTrader 4 (MT4) and MetaTrader 5 (MT5) remain industry standards, offering built-in charting, automated trading via Expert Advisors (EAs) and access to dozens of technical indicators. MT5 expands on its predecessor with additional timeframes, more order types and deeper market depth data.

For traders who prefer a web-based experience, TradingView has become one of the most popular charting platforms globally. Its intuitive interface, community-shared scripts and multi-asset capability make it an excellent complement to a broker's native platform — even if execution still happens elsewhere.

Technical indicators

Technical indicators are mathematical calculations based on price, volume, or open interest that help traders forecast market direction. Among the most widely used in forex:

Moving Averages (MA) — both Simple (SMA) and Exponential (EMA) — smooth out price data to reveal trends. Crossovers between a short-period and long-period MA often signal shifts in momentum.

Relative Strength Index (RSI) measures the speed and magnitude of price movements, flagging overbought conditions above 70 and oversold conditions below 30. Combined with trend analysis, it becomes a powerful filter for trade entries.

Bollinger Bands use standard deviation to frame price volatility. Squeezing bands often precede major breakouts, while price touching the outer bands can indicate stretched conditions ripe for reversion.

No single indicator works in isolation. Experienced traders typically combine two or three complementary tools – for instance, pairing a trend indicator like an EMA with a momentum oscillator like RSI – to generate higher-confidence signals.

The forex calendar: A fundamental necessity

While technical analysis tells you what the market is doing, fundamental analysis tells you why. One of the most important fundamental tools is the forex calendar — a schedule of upcoming economic data releases, central bank decisions and geopolitical events that are known to move currency pairs.

A forex calendar typically lists events by date and time, ranks them by expected market impact (low, medium, or high), shows forecasted values, and updates with actual figures the moment data is released. Key events to track include Non-Farm Payrolls (NFP), Consumer Price Index (CPI) reports, Federal Reserve and ECB interest rate decisions, GDP releases and manufacturing PMI figures.

Traders use the forex calendar in two main ways: to avoid holding positions during high-impact news when spreads widen and slippage risk increases, or to actively trade the volatility that follows a significant data surprise. Either way, ignoring scheduled economic events is a common and costly mistake for beginners.

Risk management calculators

Professional traders consistently emphasise that longevity in forex comes from managing losses, not just maximizing wins. Risk management calculators help determine appropriate position sizes based on account equity, stop-loss distance and acceptable risk per trade — typically 1–2% of capital.

Many brokers include built-in position size calculators, and standalone tools are available online. Inputting your account balance, the currency pair, stop-loss in pips, and your risk percentage instantly yields the correct lot size — removing guesswork and emotional decision-making from what should be a mechanical calculation.

Economic news aggregators

Beyond scheduled events on a forex calendar, markets are constantly reacting to unscheduled headlines — geopolitical developments, central banker speeches, unexpected data revisions, and surprise policy announcements. News aggregator tools like Forex Factory, Reuters, Bloomberg Terminal, or dedicated in-platform news feeds help traders stay informed in real time.

The speed at which information is processed and acted upon in forex markets means that a slow news feed is nearly as bad as no news feed at all. Algorithmic systems react within milliseconds to major headlines; human traders must at least be aware of what is moving the market to avoid being caught on the wrong side.

Backtesting tools

Before deploying any trading strategy with real capital, backtesting allows you to run it against historical price data to evaluate its performance. MT4 and MT5 include built-in strategy testers, while platforms like Forex Tester offer dedicated simulation environments with tick-by-tick historical data for more granular analysis.

Key metrics to examine during backtesting include win rate, average risk-to-reward ratio, maximum drawdown, and the profit factor. A strategy that looks profitable in live trading but has never been tested is essentially a hypothesis — backtesting converts it into evidence-based confidence.

VPS (Virtual Private Server) for automated trading

For traders running automated strategies or Expert Advisors, uptime and latency are critical. A Virtual Private Server keeps your trading terminal running 24 hours a day, five days a week, regardless of your local internet connection or computer state. Many broker-hosted VPS solutions place servers physically near exchange matching engines, reducing execution latency to single-digit milliseconds.

Building your toolkit strategically

A common mistake among newer traders is tool overload — cramming charts with dozens of indicators until the signal is buried under noise. Professionals tend to work with fewer tools, deeply understood, rather than many tools used superficially.

A practical starting stack might include a reliable charting platform, one trend indicator and one momentum oscillator, a forex calendar bookmarked and checked daily, a position size calculator and a news feed. From this foundation, you can layer additional tools selectively as your strategy evolves and your experience deepens.

The forex market rewards preparation. The right tools do not guarantee profits, but they dramatically improve your ability to make informed decisions, protect capital, and improve over time.

Australia’s Afghan war legacy is no longer just about battlefield conduct, but a humanitarian crisis deepened by the freezing of a nation’s lifeline, writes David Higginbottom.

THE ARREST OF Ben Roberts-Smith presents an opportunity to focus on Afghanistan and Australia’s role. The 20-year U.S.-led war, which Australia dutifully supported, was sold to the public as a “good war”. The arrest of Australia's most decorated living soldier on five counts of murder brings this grim legacy into sharp focus.

The legacy of a “good war”

A recent article by the Associated Press (AP) detailed Afghanistan's malnutrition crisis, where the World Food Programme (WFP) turns away three out of every four desperate children.  While the AP article identifies aid cuts as a proximate cause, the primary driver of Afghanistan's current economic implosion is the freezing of the country's central bank reserves by the United States — a policy of collective punishment.

The freezing of sovereign assets

In August 2021, the Biden Administration froze approximately US$7 billion (AU$9.8 billion) in assets belonging to Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), held in the United States. On 11 February 2022, President Biden signed Executive Order 14064, formalising the seizure and diverting half of the funds – US$3.5 billion (AU$4.9 billion) – to a trust for humanitarian aid, while holding the other half for potential claims from 9/11 victims.

Central bank reserves are not the property of the ruling regime; they are the sovereign property of the state itself, belonging to the Afghan people. These funds are essential for backing the domestic currency, managing inflation and ensuring the liquidity of the entire banking system.

Legal scholars have argued that the unilateral seizure represents a potential violation of sovereign immunity under international law. Even a U.S. court has since affirmed that the DAB assets are immune from seizure by 9/11 victims, acknowledging they do not belong to the Taliban.

From frozen assets to starving children

The seizure instantly decapitated the Afghan economy:

• First, it triggered a massive liquidity crisis: without access to its foreign reserves, the central bank could not perform its most basic functions. Private banks were starved of cash, and strict withdrawal limits were imposed on citizens and humanitarian organisations alike.
• Second, the banking system seized up entirely. Trade financing evaporated, salaries went unpaid and commerce ground to a halt. As Human Rights Watch noted, the markets are full of food, but families – their incomes and savings gone – simply cannot afford to buy it.
• Third, even when international aid is available, the crippled banking sector makes it exceedingly difficult for humanitarian organisations to transfer and withdraw funds to pay local staff, procure supplies and run programs effectively.

The Biden Administration's creation of the Fund for the Afghan People has proven to be an exercise in futility. Since its establishment in September 2022, the fund's assets have grown to US$3.9 billion (AU$5.5 billion) through interest, yet not a single dollar has been disbursed.

The fund's board has cited concerns about the central bank's independence and the risk of Taliban diversion. The result is a cruel paradox: the U.S. is withholding the very funds needed to stabilise the Afghan economy, citing the central bank's lack of capacity as the reason for doing so.

A policy of starvation

The cuts to the World Food Programme are the final, brutal turn of the screw. Having crippled the Afghan economy by seizing its central bank reserves, the U.S. then cut funding for emergency food assistance in May 2025, citing concerns that aid could benefit the Taliban, as reported by the AP.

This decision directly explains why the WFP is now forced to make the unconscionable choice of which starving children to feed and which to turn away. In March 2026, 17.4 million people were expected to face acute hunger, while the UN humanitarian appeal for Afghanistan remains only 10 per cent funded.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is not an accident. It is the result of a deliberate policy choice to use the country's economic and monetary system as a tool of coercion. The freezing of sovereign assets is an illegal act of collective punishment that has plunged an entire population into destitution. The subsequent aid cuts only compound the cruelty.

The burden of allied policy

For Australia, the implications are significant. Having spent 20 years and billions of dollars as a partner in Afghanistan, Australia bears a moral responsibility to the Afghan people. Yet, the current U.S.-led financial blockade directly undermines Australia's own humanitarian efforts.

The Australian Government has provided over $310 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan since the fall of Kabul, announcing a further $50 million package in January 2026. Australia has rightly taken a strong stance against Taliban abuses, implementing a sanctions framework to target Taliban leaders directly. This targeted approach demonstrates that it is possible to hold the Taliban to account — without collectively punishing 40 million Afghans.

However, the blanket freezing of sovereign assets does the opposite. Australia's aid is being stretched to breaking point because the underlying economy has been suffocated by our closest ally.

The path forward

Australia, as a key ally and major humanitarian donor, must use its diplomatic leverage in Washington to advocate for the U.S. to initiate a phased, conditional release of the $3.5 billion held in the Afghan Fund for macroeconomic stabilisation, accompanied by independent third-party auditing of DAB transactions.

As Dr Albert Palazzo argues in Independent Australia, the collapse of the “rules-based order” presents Australia with a chance – and a necessity – for foreign policy independence. We must stop acting as a silent vassal to a hegemonic power and instead lead a coalition of middle powers to demand a clear separation between humanitarian, economic stability and political recognition of the Taliban.

The Roberts-Smith trial should catalyse a much broader reckoning. As Antony Loewenstein, in a recent podcast, points out, the national conversation remains focused on individuals rather than the systemic failure and nature of the war itself. We imprisoned whistleblower David McBride for exposing these crimes, while the political and military architects of the disaster remain unaccountable. 

As Loewenstein concludes, the legacy of Australia in Afghanistan is one of “failure and war crimes and violence”. We owe it to the Afghan people – whose country we helped destroy – to at least ensure they do not starve as a consequence of our ally's financial blockade.

David Higginbottom is a member of the coordinating committee of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) and coordinator of the Make Peace A Priority campaign (mpap.au).

A Moon mission dressed as humanity’s triumph reveals itself as a glossy rehearsal for American-led space colonialism, complete with billion-dollar bravado and a $23 million toilet stealing the spotlight, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

THE EARTH is in a fine mess, but human beings sealed in laboratories full of energy and vigour, attached to screens, and running tests about conditions in space, have another reason to cheer. 

Between 1 and 11 April, the Artemis II undertook a flyby of the Moon and returned safely. News bulletins, live stream feeds and podcasts afforded it saturating room and coverage. This was the first Moon mission with a crew in over five decades. Cue, then, for the grand claims, the exaggerated hopes, the silliness of it all.    

Absurdly, the effort is being heralded as a collective push by humanity despite its distinct NASA credentials, yet another instance of coarse patriotism yoking itself to scientific endeavour. This is an American gig and it will be assessed along with every other expensively patriotic mission launched by any number of States believing that the dark side of the moon is the next big thing in competition and exploitation. 

President Donald Trump’s Executive Order of December 2025 promises ‘American space superiority’, with the Artemis Program intended to return ‘Americans to the Moon by 2028... assert American leadership in space, lay the foundations for lunar development, prepare for the journey to Mars, and inspire the next generation of American explorers’. 

It is also worth considering the statement by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman made in March:

“NASA is committed to achieving the near-impossible once again, to return to the Moon before the end of President Trump’s term, build a Moon base, establish an enduring presence and do the other things needed to ensure American leadership.” 

Nothing about humanity here so much as a bald MAGA admission that:

“The clock is running in this great-power competition, and success and failure will be measured in months, not years.” 

Just to complete the trio of examples, Sean Duffy, when he was acting NASA administrator, did not shy away from the messianic zeal of the American space program. In an internal staff briefing held last year, he was unambiguous that the U.S. had to get to the Moon before China before venturing on to Mars. This was only natural, as his country had a ‘manifest destiny to the stars’.

Colonial pursuits are often preceded by the spirit of discovery, economic reconnaissance and inquiry. Then comes the appropriation, the brazen theft, the seizure wrapped in the jolly packaging of blood, civilisation and empire. Thankfully, in this case, there are no Indigenous populations to exterminate, no extant human cultures to extinguish. That extermination will take the form of great powers vying over rare mineral real estate as an exercise in colonial escapism.

Much of the mission, because the lay audience could have no sense or truck with the finer details of the travel, was reduced to soap opera banalities and focal points of sheer triviality. In some instances, it was even worse than a soap opera, crying out for some definitive, asteroid finish. Prosaic details were offered about lavatory failures, which only matter because people relate to them with faecal and urinary familiarity. 

NASA revealed on 2 April:

‘The Artemis II crew, working closely with mission control in Houston, were able to restore the Orion spacecraft’s toilet to normal operations following the proximity operations demonstration.’ 

That lavatory, at the cost of $23 million, was also said to be the second-dearest toilet system ever built. We were also told with quotidian certainty that all lavatories in space tend to end up having failings of some sort, which will no doubt launch a thousand theses on faeces in due, and easy comfort. University examination boards can look forward to the excessive discharge.

Moving items in the spacecraft were also the source of various bromide observations. Nutella, with its hazelnut spread, got what was regarded by the press as the “greatest free advert in history”, floating about fairly unnoticed by the crew — though noticed on the live feed.

PRWeek declared:

‘When Artemis II broke Apollo 13’s distance record of 248,655 miles from Earth on Monday [April 6], it was one small step for man... and a giant leap for Nutella’s marketing team.’ 

How wonderful to also note that Nutella was founded in 1964, the same year NASA successfully completed its first lunar mission with Ranger 7.

As for global public interest, NASA and any of those in the business of filming their exploits in space need to be reminded of a rather disturbing truth. Dark, even slightly sadistic, voyeurism is never far away from such missions. Impassive spectators are a callous sort, seeking jubilation in shock. An attempt to inject drama is made in media outlets, fluffed up by pundits, about what might have happened to the crew on losing communications for several hours. They must surely make it. Surely. 

Yet, sickening voyeurism is heavy in such messages, a thanatotic urge. ‘As the astronauts pass behind the Moon at about 23:47 BST (18:47 EDT) on Monday, the radio and laser signals that allow the back-and-forth communication between the spacecraft and Earth will be blocked by the Moon itself,’ came the bland observation from the BBC.

The retching platitude, however, could not be resisted:

‘For about 40 minutes, the four astronauts will be alone, each with their own thoughts and feelings, travelling through the darkness of space. A profound moment of solitude and silence.’ 

A rather different reading of what being “alone” means, let alone solitude. 

On their return to Earth, the press conference given by the crew was saccharine, charmless and unspeakable, suggesting that space travel may narrow the mind. There was the mandatory carpet-crawling tribute act for NASA’s management. There were bucketfuls of inanities on team enterprise, the insufferable jargon of organisational teamwork.

With emetic conviction, astronaut Jeremy Hanson went so far as to call the crew a “joy team” and claim that humans “don’t always do great things. We’re not always in our integrity, but our default is to be good and to be good to one another.” 

Another crew member suggested that Earth was a “dream boat” (interestingly enough, China’s own spacecraft destined for lunar exploits is named Mengzhou, or Dream Vessel) while the Artemis team were but a mirror for humanity. (Some crew, some mirror.) 

Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman, along with the rest of the crew, seemed so dazzled as to mischaracterise this proto-colonial endeavour as an effort to unify the fractious human species:

“We wanted to go out and try to do something that would bring the world together, to unite the world.”

Astronaut Christina Koch spoke of her husband’s assuring words that she had “made a difference” in transcending divisions. Other competing nation-states are unlikely to agree, let alone care for such guff. 

Logistically, mechanically and in terms of engineering, the Artemis II mission can be seen as stunning, startling and impressive, humankind showing yet again an ability to reject nature’s limitations, to foil it, if you will, by going to areas where they have no natural right to be in. In that, we can be impressed. 

But in everything else, best return to the problems of the Earth, which remain in desperate need of resolution, whatever the wide-eyed space colonists claim.

Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Cambridge Scholar and is a lecturer at RMIT University. You can follow Dr Kampmark on Twitter @BKampmark.

[el]30]/el]

Amid a fuel crisis, Australia’s carefully staged diplomacy in Asia reveals a deeper struggle with trust, identity and its place in the region, writes Carl Gopalkrishnan.

AUSTRALIA HAS ARRIVED in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, speaking the language of fuel security, food resilience and practical cooperation because pressure has stripped away some illusion.

A resource-rich country is discovering that abundance without confidence is not strength. The fuel crisis has exposed something deeper than logistics: a long uncertainty about how Australia imagines dependence, partnership and regional belonging at the same time.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong are handling this moment with discipline, and they should. We are all in deep trouble. It is not a love marriage. In American vernacular, it is closer to a booty call conducted under diplomatic lighting: polite, necessary, carefully staged, with both sides aware that morning brings the old questions back.

Asian governments are responding with courtesy, practicality and restraint. They understand pressure. They understand the need to keep systems moving. Yet courtesy should not be mistaken for emotional investment. Across recent weeks, what comes through in editorial tone across the region is not hostility but a settled distance: Australia is still often read as a country talking loudly about itself while remaining uncertain how it is heard.

Prime Minister of Singapore Lawrence Wong’s assurance that refined fuel supplies will continue “as long as upstream supplies continue” was exact, limited and technically honest. Asian ears hear exactly what that means. It is not the language of trust. It is the language of continuity under conditions.

That matters because regional trust is not only economic. It is psychological, historical and cultural. In practice, governments in this region often note whether Australia sets its own limits voluntarily or only under pressure. This is where domestic politics enters the room, whether Canberra admits it or not.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor’s speech deserves criticism because its timing is extraordinarily poor. At the precise moment Australia is asking Asian neighbours to imagine reliability under fuel pressure, wartime instability, and tightening supply chains, language that revives older suspicions about migration travels poorly beyond domestic party theatre. It damages more than debate. It reminds the region how quickly Australia can sound anxious, selective and historically tone-deaf when pressure rises.

Yet Taylor himself may soon be forgotten, because this kind of speech belongs to a familiar cycle of domestic reaction that burns brightly and then passes.

The more enduring question sits elsewhere.

Asia expects Albanese and Penny Wong to speak as they are speaking now: careful, practical, disciplined, useful in the short term. That registers, and it matters. What would genuinely disturb older assumptions in the region is something else: if MP Andrew Hastie were visibly capable of moving beyond his own harder inheritance into some recognisable regional literacy. That would register differently because it would challenge a deeper assumption many in Asia still hold — that Australia’s underlying political character does not really change, only its tone does.

Hastie’s personal rehabilitation, if it ever came, would not be merely personal. It would carry something mythic, because figures like him remain tied, consciously or not, to the same unresolved question that has followed Australia since Federation: whether the country can imagine security, belonging and identity without returning to older racial instincts when pressure hits.

I do not come to Andrew Hastie as a neutral commentator. As an artist, I have spent decades reading political language through symbolism, myth and the emotional afterlife of historical reference. I have used the avatar of Hastie in work presented through The Blake Society and in writing published in Critical Military Studies. That is why figures like Hastie interest me beyond party politics: they often carry more than policy inside them, whether they intend to or not. For good or bad, they mirror our traumas and unresolved national questions.

My earlier criticisms remain. They arose because historical references, civilisational language and inherited hardness were being applied to the region without enough feeling for how the region itself hears history. Yet it is also why any authentic enlargement in such a figure would matter far beyond his own career.

Australia has entered one of those periods when commentary cannot be left only to officials, party tacticians and defence language. Civilian voices matter in such moments because they often register what formal language cannot yet admit: embarrassment, fatigue, inherited fear, the strange gap between performance and feeling. Artists have always entered that space when Australia has needed to imagine itself differently. The Heidelberg painters did not write doctrine, yet they helped give emotional form to a country approaching Federation. Historical moments often require that wider field of interpretation before politics catches up.

That is what artists sometimes see before institutions do: history is not only made by policy, but by who carries old meanings and whether they remain trapped inside them. Some figures pass through a crisis as noise. Others, whether they wish to or not, become part of how a nation imagines whether it can change. That is far more powerful than policy.

I do not say that because I personally warm to Hastie. I do not. I say it because some figures carry more of a nation’s unfinished argument than others and when they shift, neighbours notice.

Australia’s booty call to Asia will be well performed. It may even produce useful short-term outcomes. What it will not produce, on its own, is the deeper belonging and freedom from anxiety Australians clearly crave.

For that, we will need something harder: a leap of faith, and perhaps a leap of love, toward what this country might yet become if moral imagination is allowed to do real work — to help create an Australia where racism becomes only another page in our history: a sad page, but one future Australians read as evidence that we were finally capable of change.

But that transformation requires a Trojan horse to help us – and the world – reimagine us. Angus Taylor is not that Trojan horse.

Carl Gopalkrishnan is an Australian artist and policy practitioner with long-standing experience in multicultural policy, social cohesion and community engagement.

Policy does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in environments shaped by pressure. Until we account for how that pressure changes behaviour, we will continue to see the same pattern, writes Mark Jeffrey. 

AUSTRALIA DOES NOT suffer from a lack of policy. In health, aged care and disability, we have no shortage of frameworks, reforms, reviews and recommendations. Each new initiative is typically well-intentioned, widely consulted and carefully designed. On paper, much of it is sound.

And yet, the pattern is familiar. Implementation begins. Initial momentum builds. Then, slowly, performance begins to drift. Targets are missed. Outcomes vary. Experience at the frontline diverges from what was intended. Reviews are commissioned. The diagnosis follows a predictable path: the policy needs refining.

So we redesign it. And the cycle begins again. The problem is not that policy design never fails. It does. But the more consistent issue across public systems is that we keep looking in the wrong place. Policy failure is often treated as a design problem.

More often, it is an implementation problem. And more specifically, it is a behavioural problem.

What changes under pressure?

Public systems are operating under sustained pressure.

In aged care, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlighted systemic workforce strain, funding complexity and the challenge of delivering consistent quality care at scale. In disability services, the NDIS Review (2023) pointed to increasing system complexity, cost pressures and uneven participant experience. Across health, data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) continues to show rising demand alongside workforce and capacity constraints.

None of this is new. What is less frequently acknowledged is how these conditions reshape behaviour inside the system. Under sustained pressure, people do not simply “work harder.” They work differently.

Decision-making narrows. Leaders prioritise speed and certainty over deliberation. Communication becomes more directive. Consultation shortens. Dissent – particularly when it slows progress – becomes less welcome.

At the same time, risk tolerance shifts. Not necessarily towards recklessness, but towards what feels manageable in the moment. Long-term considerations are quietly traded for immediate stability. These changes are rarely explicit. No policy instructs them. No framework endorses them.

But they occur consistently. And they compound.

The gap between policy and practice

Policy is implemented through people. That sounds obvious. But it is often overlooked in how we assess whether policy is working. Most evaluation frameworks focus on outputs and outcomes — service delivery metrics, financial performance, compliance indicators. These are important. But they are lagging. They tell us what has already happened. They do not tell us how the system is behaving while those results are being produced.

When pressure alters behaviour, it alters the conditions under which policy is enacted. Guidelines that rely on careful judgment become compressed into rules of thumb. Collaborative processes become transactional. Nuance is lost in the interest of speed. At the frontline, this is experienced as tension.

Staff are asked to deliver person-centred care while managing unrealistic workloads. Providers are expected to innovate while operating within tight funding constraints. Leaders are required to maintain compliance while navigating constant change.

Over time, people adapt. They move faster. They simplify. They prioritise what will get through the day. None of this is malicious. It is functional.

But it means the system that delivers the policy is no longer the one the policy was designed for.

Why do we keep misdiagnosing the problem?

When outcomes fall short, the instinct is to revisit the policy. Adjust the settings. Introduce new guidelines. Clarify expectations. These actions are visible. They are within the control of policymakers. And they signal responsiveness. But they often leave the underlying conditions untouched.

If the environment remains the same – high pressure, constrained capacity, competing priorities – then the behavioural patterns that shaped the initial failure will simply re-emerge. The policy changes. The system does not. This is why reforms can feel like they never quite land.

Not because the ideas are wrong, but because the conditions required to implement them effectively have not been addressed.

A different lens on implementation

If we accept that behaviour under pressure is a key driver of policy outcomes, then our approach to reform needs to expand. This is not about abandoning policy design. It is about complementing it with a more realistic understanding of how systems operate in practice. Three shifts are particularly important.

First, we need to pay closer attention to the conditions under which the policy is implemented. This includes workload, workforce capability, leadership bandwidth and organisational culture. These are not peripheral issues. They are central to whether policy translates into practice.

Second, we need to create mechanisms that surface how pressure is being experienced across the system. This goes beyond formal reporting. It requires listening to frontline staff, providers and participants in a way that captures not just what is happening, but how it feels to deliver and receive services under current conditions.

Third, we need to recognise that behaviour is not fixed. Leadership approaches, decision-making patterns and communication styles all shift in response to pressure. These shifts are predictable. But they are rarely discussed in policy contexts. Bringing them into view allows for more informed intervention.

Accountability beyond design

None of this removes accountability from policymakers or system leaders. If anything, it expands it. Designing effective policy is necessary. But it is not sufficient.

There is also a responsibility to understand how that policy will be enacted in real conditions — and how those conditions will shape behaviour over time. Without that, we risk perpetuating a cycle in which each new reform is built on an incomplete diagnosis of the last.

Breaking the cycle

Australia’s public systems are not failing because of a lack of effort, intent or expertise.

They are struggling because we continue to treat implementation as a technical exercise, rather than a human one.

Policy does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in environments shaped by pressure. Until we account for how that pressure changes behaviour, we will continue to see the same pattern:

• Well-designed policy.
• Committed implementation.
• Gradual drift.
• Another review.

And another attempt to fix what was never fully understood in the first place.

Mark Jeffery is a senior executive and author with more than 25 years’ experience leading complex organisations across aged care, community services and commercial operations.

Don't believe the News Corp bots, Pauline Hanson's One Nation failed dismally in South Australia — and will continue to fail in every subsequent election. Founder David Donovan sorts the facts from the fakery.

As Independent Australia reported on Monday (23/3/26), Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party failed dismally in the South Australian election on Saturday.

So dismally, in fact, election watchers were treated to the ignoble spectacle of Pauline Hanson belligerently talking about “setting landmines” for returning Premier Peter Malinauskas, whose Labor Government was re-elected in a landslide, winning 33 of 47 seats at the time of writing (likely 34, up from 27 in 2022).

This peculiarly graceless leader lapped up the ignorant jubilation of her supporters, seemingly oblivious to the fact her party had failed to secure even a single lower or upper house seat at that time (now one, likely to end up with three).

This result was especially dismal, since PHON had every advantage in the lead up to this election, including the mainstream media promoting it enthusiastically at every available opportunity, constantly overstating its poll results to increase the party's threadbare credibility.

More disturbingly, as Independent Australia has reported in two stunning exposés, Hanson’s Trumpian cheer-squad at Facebook and News Corp fraudulently and misleadingly misrepresented PHON’s poll results and even actively created fake news stories using AI to put Pauline Hanson and her party in a more favourable light.

This groundbreaking investigation was subsequently picked up by the ABC, although without crediting IA for the scoop (but what else is new?)

The fix was in. But even the fix was too much for Murdoch, Seven, Nine and Meta to cobble together any electoral success worth mentioning in South Australia.

There's a lot to be said about this, which cannot all be covered on these pages, as no one knows more about Pauline Hanson and her disreputable minions than the people who wrote a book about her colourful, convicted criminal chief of staff, James Ashby, in 2015: Ashbygate: The Plot to Destroy Australia’s Speaker. Since then, IA’s investigations editor Ross Jones has been painstakingly documenting every dodgy deed and unsavoury development.

The tawdry workings of the Hanson operation are impossible to easily encapsulate in one short article here, so we advise you to peruse our dedicated “Ashbygate” page and buy the book to be more apprised of the background to this latest episode.

This article is about why PHON, or “One Nation”, was never a realistic challenger in South Australia, and why it will almost certainly never seriously threaten to gain power in any territory or state — and most certainly not federally.

WHY PAULINE HANSON’S ONE NATION WILL NEVER GAIN POWER IN AUSTRALIA

Don’t believe the hype! There are two intersecting reasons why One Nation will never form government in Australia — and will probably never even manage to gain enough seats to be an official opposition. One of them is mathematical and the other sociological, but they go hand-in-hand.

Firstly, the mathematical reason

To gain power in a territory, state or nationally, a party or political grouping needs to win the majority of seats in that legislature’s lower house. The upper house, where there is one, is irrelevant to sitting on the “treasury benches”. Government sits on the so-called treasury benches because to form government, a political party or parties need to be able to guarantee supply: that is, pass its budget and any other appropriation acts necessary to finance its agenda, legislative and otherwise.

The South Australian State Election showed why Pauline Hanson’s party is unlikely to ever get close to gaining a majority of seats in the lower house of any Australian parliament. Because even with the backing of Gina Rinehart and her millions, along with numerous other billionaire backers; and even with the full-throated support of the mainstream media, led by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, but also Seven and Nine, supported by fake AI interviews on Facebook, it still only managed a mere 22% of first preference votes in the SA Lower House.

This resulted in One Nation achieving just a single seat in the Lower House — admittedly, their best ever result in that state.

In fact, even at the high-water mark in its history, when Hanson burst on the scene in 1998, it was only ever able to accrue 23% of the vote in Queensland, and win just 11 seats out of a total of 89 in Queensland’s unicameral (no upper house) Parliament. It lost all but four of those seats in the subsequent election in 2002, with its primary vote plummeting by 11%.

The reason why One Nation is unlikely to ever achieve much more than one-fifth of first preference votes – and thereby not garner more than a handful of seats in the lower house of any Australian Parliament – is due to our nation’s almost unique compulsory (for both houses) two-party preferred (for the lower house) voting system.

Compulsory, because voting is mandatory, and two-party preferred because, unless there is a clear majority for a candidate in primary votes, it usually comes down to which two candidates have received the most preferences.

In South Australia, even though the abysmal Liberal Party achieved fewer primary votes statewide on Saturday (19%), it still picked up four seats (at time of writing) to One Nation’s one. The reason for this is that the vast majority of voters preferenced One Nation below the Liberal Party.

Pauline Hanson and One Nation may be passionately supported by their zealous supporters, but everyone else seems to either dislike them or see them as a risk. That means that for One Nation to even get into second position, it needs to gain at least 35% of the primary vote and probably closer to 40%. This, it failed to do in all but a solitary seat so far and will end up with no more than three.

The mandatory nature of our voting system – as opposed to the feature of the UK and U.S. systems of getting people motivated to turn out – is also important here. Because it is very possible, with low voter turnout, with a highly vocal and motivated minority, such as One Nation appears to have, it might be enough to get it over the line in a first-past-the-post system — even with just 22% of the total voting population.

To absolutely nobody's surprise... pic.twitter.com/KCwipynyNL

— Kenny Devine (@TheKennyDevine) March 26, 2026

Now the sociological reason

Which is that, with compulsory preferential voting, the silent majority of voters restores decency and order in our system. Because the majority of the Australian public, IA contends, deplores the prejudice and bigotry of Pauline Hanson and her loudmouthed, prejudiced supporters.

As Darren Crawford wrote on Monday:

Pauline Hanson, who has spent almost 30 stuttering years in politics, has based her whole brand on the “fear of others”.

At first, in the late 1990s, this involved accusing Asian immigrants of taking over the country. She moved onto accusing Muslims of assaulting anything that moved in the early part of the new millennium.

 

This was followed by stating that African gangs are cutting every one with machetes in the mid-2010’s. She has always deplored Indigenous Australians. Recently, Hanson has returned to telling the gullible to be scared of Asians, as well as Muslims.

These "deplorables", as Hillary Clinton described Trump’s supporters – and Hanson is one of Australia’s biggest MAGA zealots, and a recent guest at Mar-a-Lago – are not popular with most Australians. And no number of bots, or millions from Gina Rinehart-style billionaires, or boosting from Rupert Murdoch and Facebook, is ever likely to make it so.

Moreover, Australians are not stupid, mostly. Why would they risk Pauline Hanson, a stammering, stumbling, invariably incomprehensible incompetent, with a party made up of clowns, misfits and criminals, which is utterly bereft of any coherent policies or governing credentials, with the precious levers of power? We have all seen what happened with Trump – and Hanson is not even half as intelligent as that cognitively-challenged, alleged paedophile grifter.

Australians – decent Australians, the majority – will never allow this laughable party of descention, offence and indignation to ever attain any more than a handful of lower house seats, IA contends. Not enough, IA further suggests, to even grant them a trial run on the opposition benches of any Australian parliament across our great brown land.

Thank goodness Australia has a system of democracy, which, although far from perfect, does not easily enable third-rate opportunists like Hanson to hoodwink enough of a disaffected minority to lead this country into a dystopian Trumpian Far-Right hellscape, easily observable to all even from far across the Pacific.

Well done South Australia. Well done Australia.

This is an abridged version of an article originally published in the weekly Independent Australia subscribers' newsletter of 26 March 2026. The original article may be accessed in the IA members-only area by subscribers.

David Donovan is the founder of Independent Australia and former vice chair of the Australian Republican Movement. Follow Dave on X/Twitter @davrosz and Bluesky @davrosz.bsky.social​​​.

Follow Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter @independentaus and Facebook HERE.

Israel’s escalating actions and influence over U.S. policy are framed as the trigger for a global crisis, with Australia set to bear the economic fallout, writes George Grundy.

“The [IDF] is the most moral army in the world” ~ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

‘I have seen enough to say it with absolute certainty: the Israeli army is the most depraved army’ ~ Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence over U.S. President Donald Trump may be the defining reason why America made the catastrophic decision to go to war with Iran, which is why the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, which in turn explains why Australia seems poised to experience an unprecedented oil shock.

Many economists forecast that our economy is about to grind to a halt, perhaps for months, so Australians must be clear-eyed about the role Israel has played in this disaster.

The prevailing view in Western politics, media and society has, for many decades, been that the Middle East is a “tough neighbourhood” (implicitly absolving Israel of blame for its occasional bouts of brutality), and an assumption that the “only democracy in the region” was committed to peace and, ultimately, a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

This was and remains an absolute fiction. Even the most casual glance at a map showing the shrinking landmass of Gaza and the West Bank (particularly since 1967) makes clear that the two-state solution was a lie, a fig-leaf allowing successive Israeli governments to expand territory and further immiserate the hapless Palestinians.

Yet what was an ongoing and immoral delusion moved from disaster to catastrophe, following the atrocious attack by Hamas in October 2023. Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to have viewed the atrocity as an opportunity to implement the long-held Zionist goal of establishing a “Greater Israel”, the first stage of which was to be the complete obliteration of Gaza.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has attempted to walk a fine line in his relations with Israel, recognising a Palestinian state but risking significant political damage by inviting Israel’s President to our shores.

Albanese’s clinging to established international dogma, whilst a betrayal of his past beliefs, might be acceptable in earlier times, but global tectonic plates are shifting at a pace unmatched since perhaps 1945.

Australians of all political persuasions should rightly consider whether Israel is indeed a moral player on the world stage and whether our country should continue to align itself with a regime that has:

• Used snipers to deliberately target infants and children in Gaza, killing thousands and creating the largest group of childhood amputees in modern history. Israel has subsequently blocked the distribution of prosthetic limbs for survivors.
• Dropped bombs on civilians sheltering in tents, burning people alive. An Australian doctor said she delivered a baby by C-section from a nine-month pregnant woman with no head, following an Israeli strike. In late 2023, the IDF forced staff out of a Gaza hospital at gunpoint and left newborn babies to starve and die. Every hospital in the territory has now been destroyed.
• Killed at least 80,000 in Gaza (the true number is probably much higher), targeting children, medical and power facilities, schools, mosques, hospitals and ambulances, water purification, journalists and civic leaders, whilst stopping nearly all aid and medicine from entering — actions clearly aimed at devastating every aspect of civil society and starving the population. A genocide, in other words.
• Attacked and killed UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. Used banned white phosphorous and cluster munitions while destroying countless villages, and carried out clear acts of ethnic cleansing that have left over a million people displaced, including around 370,000 children. Oxfam has stated that Israeli tactics used in Gaza are now being exported to Lebanon, a nation now suffering one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises on Earth.
• Tortured and murdered Palestinian children. The IDF buried captured Palestinian children alive in mass graves, after tying their hands behind their backs. An 18-month-old Palestinian child recently taken into custody by the IDF was returned with cigarette burns on its legs, having been tortured to get a confession from its father.
• Institutionalised the practice of “double tap” attacks, whereby an initial bombing is followed by subsequent attacks on the same location, killing first responders and medics. Just last week, Israel carried out a “quadruple tap” in southern Lebanon, killing those trying to help the injured over and over again.
• Trained and used dogs to rape Palestinian detainees and prisoners (according to B’Tselem and EuroMed Human Rights Monitor). In fact, sexual torture of Palestinians is so widespread that it has been described as “organised state policy”. One UN report highlighted the use of rape with bottles, metal rods and knives.

This is far from an exhaustive list. There is much, much more, often filled with unimaginable horror and moral degeneracy. As defined by Australian law, Israel is a terrorist state and carries out war crimes and grave violations of international humanitarian law almost daily.

Recently, Israel passed a law allowing capital punishment for Palestinians found guilty of “terrorism-related” crimes (which, given how Israel practices law against Palestinians, could mean nearly anything). The law only applies to Palestinians — an Israeli convicted of the same crime is not subject to it, and judgment will be carried out by martial law, with no due process, clemency or appeal process.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir proudly posted a video of the proposed execution chamber in which convicted Palestinians will be hanged. Armed Israeli forces have begun the practice of putting numbers on the hands of displaced Palestinians in the West Bank.

As the IDF has advanced across southern Lebanon, they have explicitly warned Christian and Druze leaders not to harbour Shiite Muslims in their homes — Jewish troops forcing one particular religious group of people out of Lebanese society, potentially searching for them in their attics. Anyone with a knowledge of history should see the historical resonance of these monstrous practices.

Race-based execution laws, genocidal destruction, institutionalised rape, pogroms in the West Bank, military expansion in nearly all directions. A network of at least 16 torture camps, where thousands are held, often without charge. Were it not such a forbidden comparison, we might spot similarities to another fascist regime in the 1930s.

Those making the connection are hardly from the fringe. Almost half of Britons in one poll said they believed Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews. Ehud Olmert, a former Prime Minister of Israel, signed a letter describing settler violence in the West Bank as ‘Jewish terrorism’.

Political scientist John Mearsheimer recently said:

“If there were Nuremberg trials, right, where the Israelis and the Americans were brought before the court, President Trump, along with President Netanyahu and many of their advisors, would be hanged.”

Imagine this horror was being carried out by any nation on Earth not named Israel. Ask yourself what poses the greater threat — Iran, which until Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement was clearly not developing a nuclear bomb, or Israel, wildly attacking everyone in sight, led by a genuine maniac and possessors of the world’s only undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Far from operating the most moral army in the world, overwhelming evidence shows that Israel is now an entirely rogue state, raping, starving, torturing and murdering its prisoners, bombing its neighbours indiscriminately, annexing nearby territory and goading its patron, America, into actions that could easily lead us to a new world war.

Israel is hardly shy about its intentions. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently gave a speech in which he said, “There will be expansion in Gaza that will extend our borders. In Lebanon, to the Litani, in Syria, Mount Hermon, parts of the north, south, and east.” This would represent a “Greater Israel” plan, stretching (one might say) from the river (Litani) to the (Mediterranean) sea.

Such is the insanity of the time in which we live that voicing this same expression in Queensland will land you in prison, while it is so widely used by Israeli politicians that it’s literally in the Twitter (X) bio of the Prime Minister’s son.

Yet, despite heartening protests in Tel Aviv, poll after poll shows that a majority of Israelis support this endless militarism. Young Israelis are more right-wing, religious and conservative than their elders. An eventual end to Netanyahu’s appalling leadership seems unlikely to reform Israeli society.

An unprecedented oil shock is nearly at Australia’s shores. It’s likely to be the most devastating event for this country since the Second World War and when it arrives, Australians should remember that the crisis originated in the White House situation room on 11 February, when Netanyahu finally convinced a gullible American president to carry out his decades-long wish for an attack on Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a violent extremist, a fugitive from justice at the International Criminal Court, who cannot enter even the commercial airspace of many countries for fear of arrest. It was Netanyahu who convinced Trump to catastrophically withdraw from the JCPOA, Israel that is primarily responsible for the catastrophe currently re-shaping our world and Israel who will be culpable, should a worldwide famine ensue.

Israel is the single greatest threat to world peace today. The past comfy assumptions about global partnerships are gone. Australia should join the growing list of nations that want nothing to do with this belligerent, fascistic country.

George Grundy is an English-Australian author, media professional and businessman. You can follow him on Twitter @georgewgrundy.

A sharp appellate ruling has struck down NSW’s ‘social cohesion’ protest laws as unconstitutional, placing Queensland’s speech crackdown and looming federal legislation squarely in the legal firing line, writes M Dalton.

A UNANIMOUS NSW Court of Appeal has struck down the Bondi-era Public Assembly Restriction Declarations (PARD) scheme as an unconstitutional burden on the implied freedom of political communication.

The ruling's reasoning reaches directly into the Queensland speech-law prosecution adjourned to 29 April, the Commonwealth's proposed Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill and the Federal Government's ASIO warrant expansion proposals.

The “social cohesion” justification has now failed judicial scrutiny at the highest appellate level in the country's most populous state. Legislators drafting to the same rationale should take notice.

On Thursday 16 April 2026, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a unanimous judgment that the Minns Labor Government's Bondi-era protest restrictions were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Andrew Bell, President of the Court of Appeal Julie Ward, and Justice Stephen Free held that the PARD scheme, rushed through the NSW Parliament on Christmas Eve 2025 in an emergency sitting, impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication under the Commonwealth Constitution.

The decision, delivered in Sydney's Banco Court, is the second Minns Government anti-protest law to be found unconstitutional in six months. That pattern is about to become a problem for more than just New South Wales.

The scheme the court struck down

The PARD scheme empowered the NSW Commissioner of Police to make a declaration restricting all authorised public assemblies in a defined geographic area for a defined period following a suspected terrorist act. The impugned provisions were Part 2 Division 3A of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW), specifically sections 23B(2), 23C and 23D, read with sections 27A and 27B of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW).

While a PARD was in force, the ordinary form 1 authorised-assembly system was extinguished across the declared area. No public assembly could be authorised. Police retained move-on powers under separate provisions to enforce the restriction. The declaration could be renewed.

The scheme was used once, at scale. NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon issued a PARD covering Sydney's central business district and eastern suburbs, extended it several times through the summer, and kept it in force for approximately two months.

The restricted period coincided with the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog in early February, which drew large protests and, according to a watchdog investigation, allegations of widespread police misconduct. The restrictions were lifted shortly after Herzog left the country.

The challenge

Three plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge on 7 January 2026 in the NSW Supreme Court proceeding 2026/00007005: Gumbaynggir, Bundjalung and Dunghutti activist Elizabeth Jarrett, representing the Blak Caucus; Palestine Action Group organiser Joshua Lees; and Jews Against the Occupation '48 organiser Michelle Berkon.

Their plaintiffs' submissions, filed 26 January 2026 and publicly accessible through the NSW Supreme Court documents repository, sought declarations that the impugned provisions impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters and were invalid.

David Hume SC appeared for the plaintiffs. Brendan Lim SC appeared for the State.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism intervened in the proceedings, filing submissions on 27 January 2026 and granted leave to appear as amicus curiae.

The Rapporteur's submissions framed the PARD scheme against international human rights law standards, including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 21 and Human Rights Committee General Comment 37 on the right to peaceful assembly. The UN intervention elevated the case's standing under international norms.

What the Court found

The Court of Appeal applied the Lange / McCloy framework. The implied freedom of political communication, first articulated by the High Court in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1997, is a structural limit on both Commonwealth and State legislative power. The current operative test, from McCloy v New South Wales (2015) and refined in Brown v Tasmania (2017), is a three-stage structured proportionality analysis. A law that burdens political communication is constitutionally valid only if it is suitable (rationally connected to a legitimate end), necessary (there is no obvious less-restrictive alternative) and adequate in its balance (the importance of the end is not outweighed by the burden on the freedom).

The State argued the PARD scheme's purpose was “protecting the community and enhancing social cohesion” in the aftermath of the Bondi Beach attack. The State's legitimate-end argument had a problem of its own record. At the 26 February hearing, Justice Free put to the State's counsel that NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley had said publicly that the law was intended to “signal to the community that assembling in public spaces in the designated area is discouraged”.

The State's reply, through Brendan Lim SC, was that the purpose was not to discourage protests. The Court was unpersuaded.

The reported judgment language, carried by RNZ and confirmed in contemporaneous reporting by The Guardian Australia, ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review:

“But that does not make it any more constitutionally permissible to seek to address the social repercussions of the event by quelling all public assemblies in a particular area in the name of preserving social cohesion.”

The scheme was declared invalid. Charges laid during the PARD period are now liable to withdrawal. Greens MLC Sue Higginson, a lawyer and the party's justice spokesperson, said publicly on the day of the ruling that the charges “need to be withdrawn” and that civil liability exposure for the State was “in the tens of millions”.

Premier Chris Minns said in a statement that the Government was “disappointed” by the ruling but stood by its decision to introduce the legislation, citing the 15 lives lost in the Bondi attack.

Why Queensland is next

On 8 April 2026, Liam Parry became the first person charged under Queensland's Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026, introduced on 10 February 2026 by Police Minister Dan Purdie of the Crisafulli LNP Government and assented on 11 March 2026.

Purdie delivered the introductory speech articulating the Bondi rationale. Parry was arrested on 11 March for reciting the phrase “from the river to the sea” at a pro-Palestine protest outside Queensland Parliament. His matter was briefly heard at Brisbane Magistrates Court on 8 April and adjourned to 29 April, where the defence is expected to challenge the constitutionality of the law on implied-freedom grounds.

Queensland Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie has been the law's public defender since Parry's arrest, telling the ABC on 8 April that ‘he was confident the laws against “venomous, poisonous rhetoric” were valid’.

Outside the courthouse the same day, 70-year-old Mark Gillespie was warned by police for holding a sign that read ‘from the sea to the river’, a twist on the banned phrase that swapped the word order. Gillespie agreed to put the sign down after police told him the law could capture phrasing that resembled the prohibited expression. He was not arrested or charged.

Gillespie is not the only 70-year-old the law has reached. On 18 March 2026, Catholic anti-war activist Jim Dowling was charged for displaying a banner outside the Brisbane headquarters of Boeing that read ‘From the River to the Sea, Brisbane will be free of Boeing’. Dowling, also 70, appeared at Brisbane Magistrates Court on 14 April, attempted to plead insanity, was granted bail and adjourned to 29 April.

Jim's son, Franz Dowling, was also initially raided by police over a similar banner; his charges were dropped and he was let off with a warning. The Dowling cases extend the law's reach well beyond any plausible reading of its antisemitism rationale. A protest banner critical of a defence contractor, caught by a law Parliament ostensibly drafted to counter antisemitism, is the textbook McCloy adequacy problem.

The Jarrett ruling is not binding on Queensland courts. A decision of the NSW Court of Appeal is, however, a highly persuasive appellate authority, particularly on reasoning. The Queensland law relies on adjacent “community safety” and “fighting antisemitism” rationales that track the same architecture. After Jarrett, that architecture has lost at the appellate level.

University of Queensland public policy professor Katharine Gerber told ABC Brisbane earlier this month that the Queensland law is “extremely vulnerable” to a constitutional challenge and unlikely to survive a High Court challenge. The Jarrett reasoning gives that prediction considerably more force. The Human Rights Law Centre described the Queensland law at passage as ‘divisive and discriminatory’.

Students for Palestine convenor Ella Gutteridge, speaking outside court on 8 April, summarised the public argument:

“They're unconstitutional and they fundamentally undermine freedom of speech in this country.”

A defence that was an uphill argument on 7 April is now a McCloy-grade argument on 29 April.

The Commonwealth problem

The Commonwealth's Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is presently before the federal Parliament. Its explanatory memorandum, publicly accessible through AustLII, relies on the same rationale architecture as the NSW and Queensland laws.

It states, in terms, that ‘the right to peaceful assembly is limited by the new listing’ and that assemblies advocating violent extremist conduct may lawfully be restricted. The framing ‘protection of public safety and public order’ and the appeal to ‘social cohesion’ run throughout the justification documents.

If the Jarrett reasoning transfers to a Commonwealth challenge – and there is no obvious reason it would not – the Commonwealth bill faces the same McCloy adequacy problems the PARD scheme faced. Because the Commonwealth bill is a content-based restriction (it targets specific IHRA-aligned speech categories) rather than a content-neutral one, it potentially attracts stricter scrutiny at the McCloy suitability limb as well.

Content-based restrictions have always been harder to defend than content-neutral ones. Broader geographic reach (national) and broader subject-matter reach (defined speech categories) compound that difficulty, not ease it.

Senior voices had already raised these concerns during consultation. John Lyons, the ABC's global affairs editor and a former Middle East correspondent, documented the structural pressures on Australian discourse on Israel/Palestine in Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism's Toughest Assignment (Monash University Publishing, 2021).

Bob Carr, former Australian Foreign Minister and NSW Premier, reviewed the book in Pearls and Irritations on 9 October 2021 and added his own inside-government observations. Peter Fray, former editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald, reviewed it in Crikey on 8 October 2021 from a senior editorial perspective.

The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network maintains a public register of parliamentary travel sponsored by pro-Israel advocacy organisations, drawn from the Parliamentary Register of Members' Interests. These are primary-source documents on the pressures surrounding legislation and media coverage of Israel-Palestine in Australia. The rationale architecture they describe is the same rationale architecture that failed McCloy scrutiny in Jarrett.

The ASIO angle

Proposals to expand ASIO's warrant powers on “communal violence” grounds, canvassed in 2025 and 2026 federal budget statements, share the PARD scheme's rationale architecture.

The language is nearly identical: enhance social cohesion, respond to community safety concerns, restrict the prospect of assemblies that might disturb public order. The rationale architecture has failed at the appellate level in Jarrett. Whether McCloy vulnerability transfers directly to intelligence powers is a separate constitutional question that turns on whether a warrant expansion is properly characterised as burdening political communication in the McCloy sense.

That is a contested threshold question, not a settled one. But the rationale-architecture problem transfers immediately. The Commonwealth cannot continue to rely on “social cohesion” justifications without reckoning with the fact that, at the appellate level, that justification has failed on its own merits.

What to watch

Four things, in declining order of certainty.

First, whether NSW applies for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Minns' initial statement stops short of announcing an appeal. Legislative response is more likely than judicial challenge: a redrafted scheme narrowed in scope and tied to specific triggers, attempting to survive a fresh McCloy analysis. Watch for drafting instructions to NSW Parliamentary Counsel over the next two weeks.

Second, the 29 April Brisbane Magistrates Court hearings in Parry's matter and Dowling's matter. Defence will cite Jarrett. The magistrate's handling of the citation will signal whether Queensland's appellate bench is ready to follow.

Third, the Commonwealth Bill's trajectory. If the Attorney-General's Department is reading Jarrett properly, we should see drafting amendments circulated over the coming weeks. If not, the Bill will proceed unchanged and face its own constitutional challenge on arrival.

Fourth, civil liability exposure. Charges laid during the PARD period are liable to withdrawal. Individual actions for false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and breach of implied-freedom-protected political communication are now on the table. “Tens of millions” may prove an undercount.

A structural observation

The antisemitism environment the NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth Parliaments were responding to is real. Incidents of antisemitism in Australia have risen since October 2023, and the Bondi attack was its worst manifestation. The Jarrett ruling does not say otherwise. What it says is that the constitutional limit on State power to respond to that environment through suppression of assembly has not been lifted by the gravity of the occasion.

Six months ago, a court struck down the Minns Government's first attempt at anti-protest law. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal struck down the second. Two defeats in six months, on the same constitutional ground, for the same government. That is no longer a political setback. It is a pattern of legislative overreach that the Court is prepared to correct.

The lesson the Court keeps telling these governments is not subtle. “Social cohesion” is not a shorthand that exempts a law from McCloy scrutiny. “Community safety” in the aftermath of an attack is not a trump card. The implied freedom of political communication is not a preference the Executive can override by citing public order. It is a structural limit.

Queensland's magistrates will see that lesson first, in Parry's and Dowling's matters on 29 April. The Commonwealth will see it next, in whatever form the current bill takes when it reaches its final reading. Whether either jurisdiction learns from it before drafting the next “social cohesion” rationale into statute is, as of this weekend, the open question.

M Dalton is an independent researcher with a civil liberties and constitutional law focus.

This article draws on publicly available primary-source documents, including plaintiff submissions and intervenor submissions filed with the NSW Supreme Court in proceeding 2026/00007005, the Queensland Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026, and the Commonwealth Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 explanatory memorandum accessible through AustLII.

When already secure institutions are strengthened further through public subsidy, tax concessions and organised philanthropy, those facing the greatest complexity operate with fewer avenues for support, writes John Frew. 

DRIVE THROUGH ALMOST any major Australian city and the presence of its most established private schools is unmistakable. They occupy substantial land, often in locations that have grown increasingly valuable over time. Their buildings reflect decades of expansion: new wings, specialist facilities, performance spaces and carefully maintained grounds. Names of benefactors mark a continuity of support across generations.

These are not fragile institutions. They are stable, confident and highly effective. Demand is strong, outcomes are consistently high, and their communities are deeply invested in their success. They are also, in many cases, charities.

This sits comfortably within the existing legal framework. These schools qualify for tax concessions, attract tax-deductible donations and receive public funding. Each element can be justified on its own terms. Considered together, however, they introduce a quiet tension.

Charity implies support directed towards need, a mechanism through which advantage is redistributed. That meaning does not sit easily alongside organisations that are visibly well-resourced and operating in a competitive educational marketplace. The issue is not performance. It is structured.

On what basis does an institution with substantial accumulated resources continue to qualify for concessions designed to support public benefit?

These questions become clearer when the mechanisms that sustain these institutions are considered together. Public funding, the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), provides a stable base. Philanthropy builds upon that base, often substantially and over long periods. Tax concessions amplify these contributions. Over time, this produces institutions that are not only effective but increasingly well-resourced, with expanding facilities and growing flexibility.

None of this requires coordination. It is the natural outcome of aligned incentives. What emerges is cumulative advantage: each layer builds upon the others, gradually widening the distance between institutions that benefit from this alignment and those that do not. The shift is rarely dramatic, but over time it becomes unmistakable.

Public schools educate the majority of Australian students and carry the broadest social mandate, enrolling young people across the full range of backgrounds, abilities and needs. In many communities, they function as central civic spaces where social and economic pressures are most directly encountered. Their work is complex, and increasingly so.

In areas of disadvantage, schools contend with the layered effects of poverty, instability and trauma. Behavioural complexity is a daily reality shaping classrooms, staff workload and student experience, while expectations continue to expand across academic performance, wellbeing, inclusion and community engagement.

Funding, while substantial in aggregate, is tightly structured and often absorbed by these demands. Public schools remain below full funding, operating at around 90 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard — leaving limited capacity to accumulate resources beyond immediate needs. Facilities are maintained but rarely transformed at the pace seen elsewhere, and staffing flexibility is constrained. The system is designed to deliver broadly, not to build advantage.

Within this context, the distribution of additional support becomes difficult to reconcile. Public schools have limited access to philanthropic networks and do not attract large-scale tax-deductible donations in any consistent way. Their capacity to generate independent revenue is constrained both structurally and ethically. At the same time, federal funding continues to flow across both systems. It is often argued that responsibility for public schools rests primarily with the states. There is truth in this. But if the Commonwealth participates in school funding, then how that funding is distributed becomes central.

When public resources, tax concessions and private contributions combine to strengthen institutions already well-positioned, while those serving the most complex needs operate with fewer avenues for supplementation, an asymmetry emerges. This asymmetry is not the result of a single decision, but the cumulative effect of many decisions moving in the same direction.

Philanthropy reflects a similar pattern. Giving is increasingly mediated through structured systems, foundations, development offices and fundraising bodies that align contributions with institutional priorities. Resources tend to flow towards organisations with the capacity to attract and manage them effectively: those with established networks, recognised brands and the infrastructure to sustain donor engagement.

In this environment, advantage compounds. Less-resourced schools rarely have access to this infrastructure, their focus remaining on immediate demands. Generosity has not diminished; it has been organised, and in being organised, it has become part of the same system that shapes advantage.

A further dimension lies in the formation of those who shape policy. Across Australian parliaments, a disproportionate number of elected representatives have been educated in fee-paying schools. This is not universal, but it is consistent enough to matter. Policy is shaped within networks where shared assumptions carry influence, and many of these schools explicitly aim to develop leadership within stable, well-resourced environments.

The consequence is not intent, but perspective. When policymakers are formed within stable systems, those conditions become the implicit reference point. This extends into the public service, where policy is designed around coherence, predictability and measurable outcomes. In education, this produces a model of how schools are expected to function when they are “working well.”

For many public schools, particularly those in disadvantaged communities, this creates tension. The conditions shaping behaviour and learning are often unstable and unpredictable. When policy assumes stability that does not exist, its relevance diminishes. Expectations cannot be consistently met, measures of success reflect absent conditions, and interventions are designed for systems that operate differently. The gap between policy and practice widens.

This is not neglect. It is misrecognition. Systems interpret new conditions through familiar frameworks, simplifying complexity to make it manageable. The consequences are felt most clearly in classrooms, where teachers work within frameworks that assume stability while responding to environments that are anything but. Behavioural complexity and uneven readiness for learning are part of daily reality, and bridging this gap becomes an ongoing task without sufficient resources.

  
This occurs within a system still operating below its own identified standard. Over time, structural strain emerges. Support services are stretched, specialist expertise is limited, and time, the most critical resource, is compressed. What emerges is not failure, but a system in which recognition and resourcing are only partially aligned.

The outcome is continuity. Institutions that begin with strength become stronger, while those operating under more complex conditions continue within tighter constraints. This pattern is reproduced through the interaction of funding, philanthropy, policy and perception. Change, therefore, requires more than adjustment. It requires recognition, an ability to see clearly the conditions that are not currently well understood and to respond to them on their own terms.

This returns the argument to its starting point. The question is not whether successful schools should succeed, nor whether generosity should be encouraged. It is whether the structures through which support is delivered still reflect their intended purpose. When institutions already secure are strengthened further through public subsidy, tax concessions and organised philanthropy, while those facing the greatest complexity operate with fewer avenues for support, the meaning of that support shifts.

It becomes less about addressing need and more about sustaining advantage.

And the question that remains is a quiet one: not whether the system works, but who it is ultimately working for.

John Frew has worked in education for almost 50 years, including as foundation principal at a secondary school for students with conduct disorder and oppositional disturbance.

The ecological destruction and the poisoning of the population continue with the attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, as well as with Iranian attacks on the Gulf states, writes Dr Klaus Moegling.

The current situation

The Iranian mullah regime is hostile toward its own people and obsessed with the idea of destroying Israel as a state.

Yet negotiations were underway that were aimed at defusing the nuclear and missile programs. Despite this negotiated solution, which was considered both possible and realistic, an attack was launched on 28 February 2026. Once again, a U.S. administration is destabilising the Middle East. The Israeli Government – which in parts is far-right extremist – stands by its side.

Both states are causing immeasurable suffering and exacerbating the situation of the already oppressed people in Iran. The military escalation between Israel and Iran, as well as Iran’s militant allies – Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis – is dragging the Middle East into yet another human and ecological catastrophe.

The Iranian regime, prepared for and organised to counter Israeli and U.S. attacks, launches counterattacks against the infrastructure of more than a dozen oil-producing nations. Oil refineries and oil fields go up in flames, polluting the air, causing acid rain, and poisoning the groundwater. The firefighting chemicals used to combat the numerous fires are also carcinogenic. The near-total destruction of the Iranian fleet led to the contamination of the sea with oil slicks.

Once again, thousands of people die from the direct impact of missiles, drones, cluster munitions and grenades. An entire region is forced to take constant refuge in bunkers and basements or flee the cities. The global economy is in crisis due to the already foreseeable blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipments. Gas, oil and gasoline prices are skyrocketing, and most stock market values are plummeting.

And all of this because a U.S. president lost patience and refused to wait for the largely existing outcome of negotiations.

Certainly, this was not merely a matter of Donald Trump’s lack of patience; behind it lay the Trump Administration’s domestic political motives, as well as the United States’ geostrategic and economic interests, and a mix of Israel’s imperialist and security policy motivations.

U.S. and Russian oil companies, as well as the international arms industry, are currently realising above-average returns and are the winners of this destruction.

The madness of ecological destruction in Iran, the Gulf States and the Gaza Strip

Journalist Angelique Chrisafis reports in The Guardian on apocalyptic conditions in Iran – and particularly in Tehran – following the attacks on Iranian oil storage facilities:

‘Iran’s environmental agency advised people in Tehran to stay indoors. The country’s Red Crescent said the toxic chemicals could lead to acid rain and hurt the skin and lungs, advising people to avoid turning on air conditioners or going outside immediately after rainfall. It also encouraged people to protect exposed food. Tehran’s governor recommended wearing masks outside.’

People are left to fend for themselves. There are hardly any masks or inhalers available.

But the Iranian regime, too, does not care about the ecological destruction and the associated health risks to the population, and it is deliberately targeting oil storage facilities and oil tankers belonging to Gulf states.

Journalist Susanne Aigner writes in Telepolis:

‘The toxic legacy of the burning oil tanks is already a warning to the world that the price of war could also be the destruction of our shared future. The consequences of the environmental disaster in Tehran will probably not be fully visible until the next few years. Because when the smoke will have warped, the poison will remain in the soil and water bodies and in the bodies of the people.’

Nor do we know what else to expect due to the ongoing attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and how much radioactive radiation this will cause.

Pat Elder, a U.S. journalist focused on peace and the environment, draws attention to another environmental problem: the massive use of toxic foaming agents to extinguish the numerous fires in Iran and the Gulf region. In Iran, firefighting agents containing the toxic aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) would still be predominantly used:

‘AFFF is a delivery system for PFAS, linked to cancer, immune dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and developmental harm. The compounds travel with firefighting runoff, infiltrate soil, enter drainage systems, contaminate surface water, and move into wastewater streams. In a war involving repeated fires at petroleum and gas facilities, PFAS contamination will become a defining legacy of the conflict.’

The Trump Administration doesn't care at all about the environmental destruction and the health consequences for the population. It is threatening once again that if negotiations do not succeed on its terms during the ceasefire that is coming to an end, the U.S. military will destroy all bridges and power plants in Iran.

The Israeli Government’s response to Hamas’s brutal attack in Israel was completely disproportionate. The military retaliation in the Gaza Strip claimed approximately 70,000 lives — more than half of whom were women and children. In addition to the horrific suffering of the surviving Palestinians, this retaliation also caused catastrophic environmental destruction.

German journalist Marisa Becker speaks of an ecocide in Gaza — that is, the attempt to systematically destroy a population’s natural living conditions in order to annihilate their existence.

In this context, Becker refers to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which estimates the rubble pile to reach approximately 61 million tons by September 2025. This rubble is reportedly laced with unexploded ordnance, asbestos and chemicals. Untreated wastewater flows into the ground and into the sea unfiltered.

Furthermore, Becker cites documentation from the NGO Forensic Architecture: Approximately half of the wells in Gaza have been destroyed. Two-thirds of the water tanks are no longer usable; 83% of the vegetation has also been destroyed; 70% of agricultural land is no longer usable. Nearly half of the greenhouses have been destroyed.

The criminal offence of ecocide – a charge that is likely to be met in all three cases (Iran, Gaza, Ukraine) – refers to the systematic and deliberate destruction of the natural foundations of life as part of warfare. Certainly, the states involved – in addition to other war crimes – could be charged with ecocide before international courts. Yet the states involved do not recognise this jurisdiction, as they are well aware that they will be systematically violating the ecological integrity of the planet, international law and human rights.

Furthermore, the military is one of the largest global polluters, not only during military operations – in war – but also in its day-to-day military operations, in regions not yet affected by war. The global military can be regarded as one of the most dangerous institutional contributors to climate damage, causing massive harm even during normal operations.

One can assume that the climate damage caused by the normal global operations of the U.S. military is comparable to the greenhouse gas emissions of three medium-sized countries. It is estimated that routine military operations alone already account for 5.5% of global climate-relevant emissions. This figure does not yet include the ecological damage caused by wars.

Conclusion: Fossil fuels are a driving force behind war

The natural world ranks very low on the priority list of those who make decisions about war and peace. First, these warlords do not care about the natural world, and second, they also do not care that people (and animals) suffer as a result of the destruction of nature.

These decision-makers are completely detached from the planet’s ecology; they think in purely instrumental terms, and their priorities are power, oppression, oil, rare earths and money.

Perhaps humanity will not be able to defend itself against these obsessed rulers, but the planet will do so thoroughly in the medium term — and those who suffer the consequences will be all those who are not responsible for this.

Nevertheless, it is important not to give up and to do everything possible to ensure that things turn out differently. A peaceful and sustainably developed world is (still) possible.

The crisis in the global supply of fossil fuels triggered by wars holds – in addition to the negative consequences it causes – opportunities for an ecological shift toward the increased use of renewable energies.

The peace- and ecology-oriented journalist and author Franz Alt therefore writes in his article, ‘Sun and wind don’t need the Strait of Hormuz’:

‘One of the most crucial questions of the future is: war for oil or peace through the sun? The Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the war over Venezuela and now the Iran war: all these wars were or are wars over fossil fuels. The sun and the wind are gifts of heaven. They are peace energies.’

Dr Klaus Moegling is a political scientist with a postdoctoral qualification and a university professor. He is the author of the book, Realignment: A peaceful and sustainably developed world is (still) possible), published open access.

Artificial Intelligence has uncanny parallels with a gothic novel written more than two centuries ago, which captured a fundamental truth: creation and responsibility are inseparable, writes Paul Budde.

IN 1818, an 18-year-old Mary Shelley published Frankenstein, a novel that reads today less as gothic fiction and more as a warning about technological ambition.

At its centre is Victor Frankenstein, a scientist who succeeds in creating life — but fails to take responsibility for it. His downfall is not the act of invention, but his refusal to deal with its consequences.

That failure proves catastrophic.

Shelley was writing during the Enlightenment, an era built on faith in reason and progress. That belief still shapes how we think about technology today. We are told that technology is neutral — merely a tool. Its effects depend on how it is used.

But this is increasingly untenable.

Technologies are shaped by the systems that create them — commercial incentives, political interests and social dynamics. They are not neutral once deployed at scale. They actively shape behaviour, institutions and even truth itself.

Artificial intelligence is a case in point

AI systems are being developed at an extraordinary speed, introducing capabilities that are not fully understood. Yet the structures driving this development are dominated by competition: speed, scale and market control. Ethics is acknowledged, but rarely decisive.

The result is a growing responsibility gap.

No single actor fully owns the consequences. Governments lag behind, regulation is reactive, and corporations operate under pressure not to fall behind competitors. Responsibility is dispersed — and therefore weakened.

We have seen this before

The rise of social media platforms was initially celebrated as a force for connection and democratisation. Instead, it has contributed to misinformation, polarisation and the erosion of democratic norms. These outcomes were not entirely unforeseen — but they were not seriously addressed when it mattered.

Even now, meaningful reform struggles against business models built on engagement and growth.

This is not just a failure of foresight. It is a failure of responsibility.

Shelley’s insight remains strikingly relevant. Frankenstein’s mistake was not innovation, but abandonment. He created something powerful and then stepped back, leaving society to deal with the consequences.
 
Today, that pattern is institutionalised. Innovation moves fast; accountability follows slowly, if at all.

If technology is not neutral, then responsibility cannot be optional.

This requires a shift in thinking. Ethical considerations must be embedded from the start, not added later. Regulation must anticipate, not react. And we need to question the assumption that faster innovation is always better.

More than two centuries ago, Shelley captured a fundamental truth: creation and responsibility are inseparable.

In the age of AI, that truth has become urgent

We are no longer dealing with isolated inventions, but with systems that shape societies. If we continue to innovate without accountability, we risk repeating Frankenstein’s mistake — this time not in fiction, but at scale.

The question is no longer whether we can build these technologies.

It is whether we are prepared to take responsibility for what follows.

 

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

Everything Australians need to know about plovers: why they swoop, when swooping season peaks, what the law says and how to handle nesting birds safely.

AUSTRALIA is home to some of the world's most assertive wildlife and the masked lapwing, known colloquially as the plover, ranks among the most encountered. Each spring, thousands of Australians report being swooped while walking, cycling, or simply crossing a car park. Understanding why plovers behave the way they do makes the experience significantly less alarming and, in most cases, entirely manageable.

What is a plover in Australia?

The bird most Australians call a plover is the masked lapwing (Vanellus miles). It is a medium-sized ground-dwelling bird found across the continent, particularly in open grassy areas, suburban parks, oval edges and airport surrounds. Two subspecies exist: the northern subspecies, which has a large yellow wattle covering much of the face, and the southern subspecies, which has a smaller wattle and a black shoulder marking.

Masked lapwings are not migratory. They are year-round residents in most parts of Australia and are among the few native birds that have thrived in urbanised environments rather than retreating from them.

Why do plovers swoop?

Swooping is defensive behaviour triggered by perceived threats to a nest or chicks. Plovers are ground nesters, meaning their eggs and young are laid directly on open ground with no structural protection. A nest can be in a park, a school oval, a highway median strip, or a shopping centre car park.

When a person or animal comes within roughly 50 to 100 metres of an active nest, the adult plovers will call loudly and, if the perceived threat continues to approach, swoop repeatedly. The birds have a small spur on each wing, which they can use to strike, though actual contact is relatively uncommon. The primary tactic is intimidation through noise and close passes.

Swooping season in Australia runs from approximately July to November, peaking in September and October, which corresponds to the main nesting period across southern and eastern states.

Are plovers dangerous?

For healthy adults, plovers are startling rather than genuinely dangerous. The risk is primarily indirect: being startled while cycling or walking near traffic, or children being frightened and running into hazards.

Plovers are a protected species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is illegal to harm them, destroy their nests, or interfere with their eggs without a permit. This protection means the options available when dealing with swooping plovers are limited by law.

What to do when a plover swoops you

The most effective strategies are also the simplest.

Avoid the area if possible. Plovers will stop swooping once the chicks are mobile, which typically takes four to six weeks. If there is an alternative route, use it for the duration of the nesting period.

Walk, don't run. Running triggers a stronger defensive response. Maintain a calm, steady pace and move away from the nest area without making sudden movements.

Make eye contact or wear "eyes" on the back of your head. Plovers are less likely to strike when they believe they are being watched. Wearing sunglasses on the back of your head, or attaching a pair of eyes to a hat, has been reported to reduce swooping frequency.

Use an umbrella. Holding an open umbrella creates a physical barrier and reduces the plover's ability to make a close pass.

Do not retaliate. Beyond being illegal, attempting to chase or frighten a nesting plover typically intensifies the behaviour rather than discouraging it.

Plovers across Australian states

Masked lapwings are present in every Australian state and territory. Population density and behaviour vary slightly by region.

In Queensland and the Northern Territory, the northern subspecies is dominant. In Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, the southern subspecies is more common. Tasmania has a significant masked lapwing population concentrated in agricultural and coastal areas.

Urban sightings are increasingly common across all major cities. Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney residents regularly report nesting plovers in school grounds, sports fields and suburban parks.

Plovers and Australian wildlife tourism

For international visitors, encountering a swooping plover is often one of the more memorable wildlife interactions of a trip, second perhaps only to spotting a kangaroo at close range. Australia's unique fauna is one of the primary drawcards for tourists and knowing how to behave around native wildlife is practical preparation before arrival.

Staying connected while exploring regional areas and national parks makes a genuine difference, whether for identifying species, accessing trail maps, or navigating unfamiliar roads. Travellers who want to get unlimited data with Holafly can activate an eSIM before departure and maintain reliable connectivity across Australia without the cost of international roaming.

Frequently asked questions about plovers in Australia

Is it legal to move a plover nest in Australia?
No. Masked lapwings are protected under federal and state legislation. Moving a nest or interfering with eggs requires a permit from the relevant state wildlife authority. In most cases, permits are not granted simply for the convenience of humans.

How long does swooping season last?
Swooping typically lasts four to six weeks per nesting pair, corresponding to the incubation and early chick stage. The broader season runs July to November across most of Australia.

Do all plovers swoop?
No. Only nesting adults with eggs or young chicks exhibit swooping behaviour. Plovers outside nesting season are generally docile and show little interest in humans.

What do plovers eat?
Masked lapwings feed primarily on insects, worms, and other invertebrates found in soft soil and grass. They forage by walking slowly across open ground and probing with their bills.

Why do plovers nest in such exposed places?
Ground nesting is the species' natural behaviour. Open, flat areas provide clear sightlines for detecting approaching predators, which is an evolutionary advantage despite the conflicts it creates in suburban environments.

Are there other plover species in Australia?
Yes. Australia has several lapwing and plover species, including the banded lapwing (Vanellus tricolour) and the red-kneed dotterel (Erythrogonys cinctus), though the masked lapwing is by far the most commonly encountered in urban and suburban settings.

A protest vote wrapped in fear and frustration is pushing Australia beyond its two-party comfort zone, writes Dr Klaas Woldring.

THE RECENT SUPPORT of the One Nation party appears to be mostly related to the growing concern about the entry of immigrants who are non-White and/or have religions and cultures not wanted by some far-right-wing Australian citizens. It is more than that, though.

The current war raging in the Middle East is a religious war above all and the murders of 15 Jewish Australians were very likely a consequence of that. At least in part, that explains the sudden growth of the One Nation Party.

The extension of that conflict by the involvement of the Trump-led U.S. Government has added a major extension to that war. Many European countries, as well as Australia, have tended to stay out of the conflict, but the issue of Australia’s future immigration policy remains an important domestic issue requiring a rational approach.

One would think that most Australians would want to ensure that the Government avoids adding to that potential in any way. Many Jewish and Islamic migrants are peace-loving individuals, possibly even desirous of escaping the Middle Eastern religious wars. It may have little to do with racism, but one thing should be clear — Australia does not want to have another violent upheaval like what happened in Bondi.   

It was therefore quite surprising that the Prime Minister decided to invite Israel’s President Isaac Herzog. No doubt well-intended, but Herzog might have been attacked, even murdered, the consequences of which would have been disastrous, to say the least.

How this decision was reached, many must have wondered. It was probably an executive decision by the Government, actually elected by a minority of voters, we should remember. Some of those who campaigned for a republic in the late 1990s particularly stressed the need for parliaments that are not dominated by political executives. That still makes good sense and may require replacing much of the Westminster system and introducing a proportional election system.

The predominantly One Nation idea that Australians should stop relying on immigrants from many other cultures appears to be racist in nature. It is hard to say if this attitude represents just a misguided conservative attitude or a fear of other cultures. Or just plain racism. It could be all three.

In any case, there is, in reality, no shortage of room for newcomers, despite the current temporary housing shortage. Immigrants from non-Anglo cultures have been welcomed in large numbers for many years and they have mostly adapted quite quickly in the past, with very low rates of return to their home countries. A large majority of Australians have generally been satisfied with the growth of population due to immigration.

Increasingly, foreign qualifications have also been accepted more readily than in the past, since WWII. In the main, Australia has been a remarkably successful immigration country. The attitude that this has now suddenly changed, for some, would seem to have been generated primarily by recent international upheavals mentioned above. The growth potential of Australia remains enormous. 

Also disturbing are the related advertisements of one extremely rich Australian, Clive Palmer, who, as chairman of the United Australia Party, wants to stop all immigration. This “new deal”, as he proposes it, can hardly be taken seriously, as this rich continent is still very sparsely populated.

However, the actual effect of these large adverts by wealthy individuals, thus far at least, seems to have been almost negligible. Most Australians ignore these efforts altogether, with the exception of One Nation. This financial support will support One Nation.

However, real motivators for genuine governance system renewal will also be motivated by a growing dissatisfaction with the major parties. The governance system is still dominated by at least one major party, the ALP, but the opposing “Coalition” has been weakened considerably and One Nation has fairly unexpectedly gathered support as a third significant party. 

Surprisingly, no further effort has been made to move towards a republic at all since 1999. Isn’t it high time to democratise the governance system beyond the colonial structures following the failure of the Republic Referendum in 1999? Why has the ALP not shown that initiative? Why is it not forming a coalition with the Greens instead of avoiding them? Who are the innovators and reformers in the ALP? Let them speak up.

The Australian Republic Referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a two-question referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bipartisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by the Federal Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998.

The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically at the time, asked whether Australia should alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.

An excellent text leading up to that Republic Referendum was published by Professor George Winterton under the title We, the people, including contributions by Donald Horne and Elaine Thompson, former colleagues of mine at The University of New South Wales (UNSW).

A remarkable contribution also came from Campbell Sharman, who argued that the debate over a republican form of government would:

‘... only be of value if it turns its attention to that part of our constitutional structure most in need of change: the limited role of representative institutions in checking the exercise of executive power.’

Essentially, this also concerns the electoral system, even more so now than at the time. The ALP needs to recognise that the decline of the two-party system requires progressive action. The question of major constitutional change is also part of that issue.

The New Zealanders saw this need much earlier, in the early 1990s, and acted accordingly and effectively. The emergence of the One Nation party reflects the failure of the governance system. The time for renewal is right here.

Dr Klaas Woldring is a former associate professor at Southern Cross University and former convenor of ABC Friends (Central Coast).

In the next few weeks, there will be a raft of economic policy decisions taken that will be life-changing for many Australians.

The Monetary Policy Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) meets on 4 and 5 May and will announce its decision on interest rates in the afternoon of the second day of the meeting.

A week later, on the evening of 12 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will get to his feet in the House of Representatives and deliver the Albanese Government’s fifth budget. This will include a raft of decisions on tax, spending, subsidies and broader reform measures. It will no doubt include a series of measures dealing with the fallout from the oil price shock.

The RBA decisions

After the interest rate increases in February and March, the RBA has moved the level of the cash rate to one rarely seen in the last two decades. At 4.1%, it was only in the 15-month period from November 2023 to February 2025 that interest rates have been this high in the 14 years since 2012. 

In other words, interest rates are already considered high.

The current expectations for the May meeting are skewed towards a further interest rate hike to 4.35%, although it is far from certain whether the rate hike will be delivered.

The obvious problem is inflation. The global oil shock will boost inflation, but it must be emphasised that it will also lower the pace of economic growth. These will be the main influences on RBA deliberations. If inflation were its only objective, a rate rise would be certain.

What is sometimes overlooked is the other mandate of the RBA — the maintenance of full employment.  

Even before the oil shock hit the Australian economy, economic growth was slowing, which was feeding into a softer labour market. The March labour force data, released last week, showed the unemployment rate at 4.3%. It has been broadly steady near this level for over a year and, importantly, it appears to be consistent with some slack in the labour market, given that wage growth is slowing and job vacancies have fallen sharply in the past two years.

There is no doubt that the unemployment rate will rise as the oil price shock hits spending, investment and employment.

Any further rise in unemployment will further depress inflation.

The RBA interest rate decision in May also follows recent data that shows a collapse in consumer sentiment, intensifying negativity from the business sector. The RBA would be wise to take account of this news.

For the “inflation first” proponents, higher interest rates seem obvious. For those with concerns about the costs of adding several hundred thousand people to the ranks of the unemployed, steady interest rates would follow, albeit with an acknowledgement of inflation being a little higher for a little longer.

The Budget decisions

 The Budget decisions are more complex and have a more lasting impact on society and the economy.

Treasurer Chalmers has the unenviable task of framing a set of policy decisions that meet what are often conflicting objectives. These include helping the household and business sectors deal with the fallout from the oil shock, the implementation of tax and other reforms that are designed to enhance productivity, whilst ensuring the budget bottom line is skewed towards balance.

The Budget has the opportunity to further address intergenerational inequality issues, particularly in housing and superannuation, and to restructure the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) to ensure the funding is better targeted. It is difficult to speculate about the potential policy decisions when the Government is still contemplating many of the specifics it will announce in three weeks.

Indeed, decisions are still to be taken in the next couple of weeks before the Budget is signed off with the fast-moving events from the Middle East influencing the end point.

Even after the interest rate and Budget decisions are delivered, the unknowable evolution of events from the Middle East (and elsewhere) will remain a potentially volatile issue that will impact the economy into the second half of 2026. Further interest rate and Budget-related decisions will unfold over the remainder of 2026.

With the speed at which geopolitical and other issues move and the magnitude of those moves still likely to be particularly large, what the RBA and Government do when the adjust their economic policy levers could well be superseded by something impacting the global economy even though the interest rate and Budget announcements will be critically important for the standing of the economy over the next few years.

Stephen Koukoulas is one of Australia’s most respected economists, a past chief economist of Citibank and senior economic advisor to an Australian Prime Minister. You can follow Stephen on Twitter/X @TheKouk.

Doubts remain over Donald Trump's ambitious 2025 "Iron Dome" space-based missile shield plan to protect continental United States from attacks from above. Benjamin Gonda reports.

Shortly after the inauguration of President Trump's second term (27/1/25), Executive Order (EO) 14186, ‘The Iron Dome for America’ marked a notable shift in United States defence policy, taking its first proactive step to advocate for effective deterrence against any ex-atmospheric threats. This included any aerial or ballistic attacks against all U.S. territories and critical infrastructure from its peer-near and near allies, as well as its adversaries.

An ambitious initiative laid out in early 2025, it may seem a near-impossible feat to achieve an extraordinary administrative, financial and legal hurdle at taxpayers' expense to contribute to the establishment of the Golden Dome missile defence system. Estimated projects from the White House put the cost of implementation at around USD$175 billion (AUD $248.65 billion), with completion of the project within the timeframe around 2029. Preliminary concepts laid out have the Golden Dome consist of multi-tier layered defences against current and next-generation aerial threats of advanced cruise missiles, ballistic and hypersonic attacks as well as drones.

Ultimately, the question of benefit to the United States homeland defence in the scope of its implementation remains to be seen. Previous administrations have practised restraint on expanding the scope of threat from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), clear emphasis on near-peer and peer-to-peer allied state deterrence in the United States force projection across various overseas theatres and joint intelligence collaboration across federal and transnational security threats. Whether the readiness in missile defence capabilities under the Trump Administration can be adequately developed against first-strike capabilities from American adversaries, such as China or Russia, any blueprint for a reference architecture remains to be seen.

The Executive Order of note stipulates that the fundamental prerequisite of choosing a tactical and strategic set of locations to provide a buffer against current and next-generation conventional weapons in high-priority non-military targets such as major population centres. This may portend to the implication that there is a tolerable degree of risk for the absence of aid in the defence of forward-deployed troops and that, of Coalition partners with strong bilateral and multi-lateral relations. The feasibility of a replicated architecture to defend both United States and Coalition assets presents a different challenge altogether, further made complicated by countries in various theatres susceptible to their own individual political cleavages to complicate a unified missile defence posture in technology, capabilities and operations.

The Golden Dome initiative may be seen as a reassurance for near-to-peer and peer states covered under its scope, but may be seen as a privileged access for ones that fall outside; potentially altering a confident, stable symmetry of deterrence guarantees where allies and Coalition partners may see Washington abandon its status quo policy of global strategic deterrence. Overall, the isolationist stance of prioritising homeland defence can perhaps undermine future partnerships between allies of the United States, in an already precarious inflection point. One in which the United States faces massive backlash in its global standing from its retreat as the "police of the West", where many countries look to the United States as its enforcement mechanism in providing effective deterrence against security threats.

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the Various Flight Phases of Ballistic Missiles prior to atmospheric entry (Source: Liviu Horovitz and Süß Juliana, '‘Golden Dome’ and the Illusory Promise of Invulnerability)

As major adversaries continue to develop novel, kinetic delivery systems to exceed the scale and sophistication of the United States' defence capabilities, policymakers within Washington have struggled to come to a consensus for a defensive shield within the unregulated space domain. The Golden Dome System aims to seek the interception of incoming missiles — regardless of notional launch points (that is, from mobile platforms to missile silos) where a comprehensive array of orbital and terrestrial defence nodes will provide dual functions, for detection and neutralisation of kinetic projectiles at all stages of missile flight.

Incorporating high missile sensor sensitivity, interceptor kinematics and precise engagement timelines to detect these aerial targets would require software integration with low-Earth orbit satellites (LEOs) to help in calculating projectile trajectory and probable flight path. This would be aided with dedicated command-and-control (C2C) centres, radars, missile interceptors and directed-energy weapon (DEW) platforms, like Israel's Iron Beam and High-Powered Microwave (HPM) systems. With these low-orbiting satellites, their limited field of view over kinetic projectiles highlights the issue for effective surveillance coverage to defend against a saturated attack.

Comprehensive coverage for software-based cyber architecture for established space-based sensors and relay networks that must operate in precise synchronisation and in real-time, is a massive undertaking. Paradoxically, a resilient missile defence shield poses a target-rich environment for adversaries. In the event of a counter cyberattack, systemic data breaches, including that of target processing and imagery within a deeply networked system of software-defined defence nodes, can jeopardise time-sensitive missile defence engagement, where uncertain variables are the most fluid that can make a difference in inflicting any damage to both military and civilian infrastructure. By addressing these potential points of failure, a resilient missile defence architecture can readily adapt to any acts of retaliation, such as reducing downtime and communication latency across different theatres.

Figure 2: Expected multi-domain capabilities for the Golden Dome Initiative to incorporate state-of-the-art innovation in missile defence (Source: Carter Palmer and Shaun McDougall, ‘How LEO, MEO and GEO Satellites Could Power Trump’s Golden Dome)

With existing technologies, we see different countries increasingly assert their respective satellite activity and even deny access to orbital corridors to other countries. Strategic orbital positioning of satellites in space itself becomes a prelude where transformation of these satellites is paramount to utilise a dual-use function; a combination of surveillance and interception functionality becomes an access-denial of strategic terrain in the domain of orbital geography. It should be stressed that the time taken for data processing of aerial threats occurs in a compressed timeframe and that low-orbit satellites can only monitor a certain number of aerial threats.

And should the Golden Dome system be established, this would put the United States on the defensive, forcing Washington to disproportionately spend its budget expenditure on proactive system maintenance and active defence should any threat of attacks arise. Washington's force projection of deterrence with the presence of the Golden Dome may reach a point of saturation, to which it may be overwhelmed by any offensive weapon capabilities by its adversaries.

There is also a cost asymmetry to the defence against aerial threat engagements and offensive assets to undermine the interceptor rate effectiveness. Cheaper offensive systems can be greatly utilised to perform a variety of functions: from mere deliberate acts of provocation, usually to test for exploits in key defensive systems and if sufficient data is gathered, a protracted, saturated attack can be executed to overwhelm these systems.

Confidence is low in the United States' ability to complete this goal within a tight window, given that armed forces readiness elsewhere is impacted; with the Navy facing lengthy delays, cost overruns and consistent under-performance in its shipbuilding capacities and inferior shipyard facilities lagging in maintenance work of commissioned vessels.

Figure 3: Concept for space-based missile interceptors to form part of the Golden Dome 'Missile Defence Shield' to emphasise outward focus on the United States mainland, not just forward-deployed forces overseas (Source: Lockheed Martin)

In relative peacetime, where geopolitical tensions of relevant theatres remain at an all-time low, discretionary funding (covering defence and non-defence funding) for the Department of Defence (DoD) for 2026 and consequent years (according to the annual fiscal year defence-spending appropriations Congress must pass) may be cost-prohibitive. Private-sector funding may reduce the deficit if prominent aerospace companies like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman make strides in innovation and efficiency. In 2025, the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency allocated only a fraction of the estimated USD$151 billion (AUD$214.55 billion) cost. The Wideband Global SATCOM System (WGS), a network of satellite communication services jointly utilised by the DoD, as well as Canadian and Australian defence counterparts, which enable real-time bandwidth and communication capabilities, would cost (without including operating costs) USD$40 billion (AUD$56.83 billion), which will aid in the Golden Dome initiative. Furthermore, low-orbit satellites would have to be replaced frequently under this initiative — an estimated 10,000 satellites. Missile interceptors, on the other hand, would require USD$20 billion (AUD$20.42 billion) in replenishment per usage of rounds.

The Golden Dome initiative, whilst bold in its visionary plan, rests confidence in its deterrence upon its cyber-resilience and adaptability in the conceptual stage. Otherwise, long-term constant patchworks to address plaguing weak points in the system may be expected.

Benjamin Gonda is a freelance writer from Brisbane.

There is a quiet revolution unfolding over the battlefields of Ukraine — and it doesn’t roar like artillery or thunder like tanks.

It hums.

Small, cheap, buzzing machines – once dismissed as hobbyist toys – have become some of the most decisive weapons of the 21st Century. And in doing so, they are rewriting not just the rules of war, but the very economics of power.

The end of expensive dominance

For decades, military superiority was measured in steel and scale: tanks, fighter jets and aircraft carriers. Power belonged to those who could afford it.

Ukraine has shattered that assumption.

A first-person-view (FPV) drone costing a few hundred dollars can now destroy multimillion-dollar armoured vehicles, a shift widely documented in battlefield reporting. Guided in real time through goggles, these drones turn combat into something resembling a live-streamed strike — intimate, precise and relentless.

This is not just innovation. It is disruption.

From symbol to system

Early in the war, platforms like the Turkish-built Bayraktar TB2 captured global attention, symbolising a shift toward unmanned combat.

But the TB2 was only the beginning.

The real transformation came later, in the form of thousands of improvised FPV drones — cheap, expendable and devastatingly effective. Ukraine’s drone units now operate at scale, with rapid iteration and battlefield-driven design changes.

The shift is clear: from few and expensive to many and disposable.

The sea is no longer safe

Ukraine has deployed unmanned surface vessels – including the so-called “Sea Baby” drones – to strike Russian naval assets and infrastructure in the Black Sea.

These low-profile, high-speed systems are difficult to detect and harder to stop. They challenge a centuries-old assumption: that naval dominance belongs to those with the largest fleets.

A billion-dollar warship can now be threatened by a weapon costing a fraction of that.

The message is unmistakable — no domain is immune to low-cost disruption.

The transparent battlefield

Today’s battlefield is saturated with eyes in the sky. Commercial and military drones provide persistent surveillance, turning once-hidden movements into visible targets .

If it can be seen, it can be hit.

The rise of the operator

Now, a single drone operator – often kilometres from the front line – can have strategic impact. Using tools that resemble gaming systems, operators guide drones with precision.

The economics of destruction

A tank costs millions. A drone costs hundreds.

This inversion allows smaller forces to inflict disproportionate damage.

The future battlefield

Future conflicts will likely feature swarms of autonomous drones, AI-assisted targeting systems and reliance on commercial technologies, including DJI.

Drone warfare distances the operator from the target and blurs accountability.

Ukraine is not just fighting a war — it is demonstrating the future of warfare.

War is no longer just fought by armies. It is fought by networks.

Angus Taylor’s proposal to mandate English for permanent visa holders raises serious questions about fairness, practicality and its underlying political intent. Dr Abul Rizvi reports.

OPPOSITION LEADER Angus Taylor says he would make learning English “an obligation for permanent visa holders, not an option”.

As with most of his policy announcements, Taylor gives no details on how this policy would work, the extent to which this is a problem or whether he has actually read any of the extensive research in this area. So how might his policy work?

Presumably, he is not proposing that the English language be a prerequisite for granting visas in the humanitarian and family migration streams. Very few people living in refugee camps around the world have strong English. Australians don’t marry people based on the strength of their English.

We also do not know what consequences Taylor intends if permanent residents don’t adequately progress in their learning of English. Is he suggesting their visas should be cancelled and they should be deported? What level of English language progression is he proposing for such an action?

What if the partner of an Australian citizen does not make sufficient progress in learning English? Would they be deported? Would Taylor try to deport humanitarian entrants who do not make sufficient progress in learning English back to refugee camps? What of the spouses of skill stream entrants who do not make sufficient progress with English? Are they to be deported?

Perhaps he thinks we should go back to the 1950s and 1960s, when we used the strap for students who did not make adequate progress in learning their studies?

There is no question that it is vitally important for people to have at least basic English to live in Australia. Very few would disagree with that. That is why applicants for citizenship are required to sit a test that is conducted in English. If Taylor thinks that is inadequate, he could require citizenship applicants to sit a formal English test.

But deporting permanent residents who don’t make adequate progress with English sounds like pure Hansonism. Perhaps that is the objective?

Because of the importance of learning English, Australia has operated the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) since the start of post-war migration. The first AMEP classes took place in 1948.

AMEP has been frequently modified based on regular evaluations. In 2017, major changes to the program were made to the AMEP at a time when Taylor was a senior minister.

We do not know if Taylor agreed with the changes but they included:

• offering additional hours of English tuition to eligible students;
• introducing a new reporting system, the Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF) to monitor student progress;
• establishing two new AMEP service streams: Social English and Pre-Employment English;
• improving targeting of existing subprograms, such as through uncapping access to the Special Preparatory Program (SPP);
• allowing service providers to choose curricula suited to their needs;
• simplifying accountability processes by reducing the number of KPIs for service providers;
• trialling of a multi-provider model in the Sydney South-West contract region, where two providers were contracted to deliver the AMEP;
• improving the efficiency and accountability of funding through changes in the funding model, including for child care; and
• increased alignment between the AMEP and Skills for Education and Employment (S.E.E.) program. S.E.E. provides English language training for Australians more generally. A material portion of Australians have inadequate English language skills.

The 2017 changes were evaluated in 2019.

This included recommendations for:

• the Special Preparatory Program remaining uncapped and available to all AMEP humanitarian entrants;
• AMEP Extend funding to be increased to better meet demand;
• stakeholders should consider ways to more systematically recruit and retain volunteers as part of the Volunteer Tutor Scheme;
• the Department of Home Affairs should consider introducing multiple Distance Learning (DL) providers to the AMEP; and
• a review of childcare provision within the AMEP.

The 2019 Review recommended a focus on four Key Performance Indicators:

• KPI 1 (Participation): 90% of eligible clients who complete an initial AMEP assessment or are referred to AMEP Distance Learning actually commence in the program within six months.
• KPI 2 (Attainment): 80% of clients in Pre Employment and Social English Streams attain one ACSF indicator per 200 hours of tuition.
• KPI 3 (Timeliness): 95% of data is recorded and reported within the required timeframes.
• KPI 4 (Accurate Assessment): 80% of client assessment outcomes are accurate against the ACSF.

A further evaluation of the AMEP was conducted in 2024. This used longitudinal research analysing the effectiveness of the AMEP by linking participant information for over 400,000 AMEP clients with administrative data from social services, taxation and the national census, from 2003–2019. This is the first time AMEP participant data was linked with other data sets.

This evaluation found that:

‘AMEP participation was associated with improved English proficiency of clients, especially when clients studied for longer periods. Migrants with higher levels of English on-entry had better labour market outcomes, higher income levels (male and female), lower rates of public housing tenancy, and were less likely to receive income support in the years following program exit.’

If Taylor were actually concerned about the English language levels of permanent residents, he would use this evaluation to identify further ways to increase AMEP participation. But sensible policy such as that is unlikely to meet his political aim of combating Pauline Hanson.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.

The national broadcaster is failing the nation badly by misreporting Australia’s economy, as Alan Austin reports.

THANK GOODNESS we can switch off ABC News and go to the footy coverage. Multiple recent broadcasts confirm the ABC’s newsroom is now a more destructive source of misinformation and misery than Rupert Murdoch’s treacherous network.

Fomenting fear and loathing

ABC News secured an interview last week with the chief economist at the National Australia Bank (NAB), Sally Auld, one of the country’s most insightful economists.

The segment, titled ‘Business confidence crashes to levels not seen since COVID onset’, drew on the NAB’s monthly business survey for March. Predictably, business confidence has plummeted since U.S. President Donald Trump’s madness has caused global upheavals.

The presenter said:

“This is a shocking report. It has all the hallmarks of an economic crisis. Where are we seeing this playing out in the economy?”

The answer, of course, is that there is no crisis in Australia’s economy. But we did not get to hear Dr Auld say that. She got as far as mentioning recent mild interest rate rises and “everything that has transpired in the Middle East over the last four to five weeks”.

A sharp edit prevented us from hearing whatever she said next.

The presenter then asserted:

“Sally Auld, this is an ominous sign for consumers already worried about price hikes.”

Pure nonsense. Inflation has remained below 4% for the last 26 months. February’s inflation was lower than January’s.

Of course, most of the world must pay more for petrol while supply is disrupted, but that ought not cause debilitating anxiety.

It would be intriguing to hear what Dr Auld told ABC News, which they edited out.

Auld has been quite upbeat all year, including earlier this month when assuring the NSW Rural Press Club that:

“One positive around all of this is that the jumping off point to face into the Iranian conflict is a low unemployment rate, basically full employment, and GDP growth that is actually pretty solid.”

The confidence trick of business confidence

The ABC’s main failure here was implying that the business confidence index measures anything tangible. It doesn’t.

Australian entrepreneurs are basking in an economy with the best combination of full employment, low inflation, optimum interest rates and stable GDP growth ever reported.

So what is the correct response to a pollster who pops this question: “Excluding normal seasonal changes, how do you expect business conditions to shift in the future?”

Naturally, with all of Trump’s malicious follies, an intelligent respondent will anticipate deterioration. But that does not signal anything material has shifted, nor that it inevitably will.

The interview ended with the monumentally stupid question: “Are we heading for a recession?”

A recession is usually defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth. So the time to speculate about that is well after the first negative quarter. That is nowhere in sight.

Dr Auld answered emphatically: “No.”

So what did ABC News do then? They incited anxiety all that day and every day since with dire threats of recession.

A companion report in the same bulletin was headed ‘The risk of a recession escalates as the Middle East war continues’.

The presenter asserted that:

“...the economic shock from the war in the Middle East is hitting home. There’s pain at the pump, prices are spiraling and fears are building that Australia could face a recession.”

This is speculative fear-mongering with no foundation.

Multiple blatant falsehoods

A segment aired last Wednesday was titled ‘World on brink of global recession if oil price shock continues: IMF’.

The presenter began:

“Sounding the alarm, the International Monetary Fund warned a prolonged war in the Middle East could push the global economy to the brink of recession.”

That is manifestly false. The IMF has not forecast a global recession. In fact, the principal graphic in this segment was the IMF’s ‘severe scenario’ presented to recent Spring Meetings in Washington. This clearly showed growth forecasts at 2% this year and 2.2% next year. Those are not recessions. (See screenshot below.)

Other recent highly irresponsible negative ABC News “stories” include:

• ‘Westpac CEO warns 'there's a chance of a recession' as interest rates rise.’ [3 April];
• ‘Nightlife News Breakdown — Ceasefires and recessions.’ [9 April];
• ‘IMF warns of inflation surge.’ [15 April];
• ‘Consumers are cutting back on spending amid higher risk of global recession.’ [17 April]; and
• ‘‘Complacent’ market drifts lower as economic outlook sours.’ [17 April].

These confirm that those who produced these reports don’t understand what a recession is. Does anyone at the ABC?

Classic historic blunders

Some readers will recall similar alarmism 17 years ago when the Global Financial Crisis whacked most of the developed world.

The ABC’s AM program in February 2009 featured Chris Richardson from Access Economics declaring: 

“What is happening internationally is absolutely diabolical... Nothing Australia can do will stop recession here because it's recession everywhere.”

Happily, that was quite false. Australia’s economy grew 1.01% in the 2009 first quarter, generating annual GDP growth of 1.63%, the highest of all 36 OECD countries.

The personnel credited with the world’s best decision-making in 2009 included then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Treasurer Wayne Swan, and a promising lad designated as Swan’s deputy chief of staff and principal adviser.

A news outlet intending to reassure its audience today that Australia’s economy is in good hands might note that should another downturn loom, all those wise counsellors are still on hand. That young adviser back then is Treasurer now — Jim Chalmers.

Actually, he could trim the debt by flogging off ABC News to Rupert Murdoch, who seems to be controlling it already.

Keep the footy department, though. They do a great job.

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001.

Managing editor Michelle Pini discusses the absurdity of David McBride's continued imprisonment, even though documents he leaked triggered Ben Roberts-Smith's arrest for alleged war crimes.

As each new day brings ever more distressing news, it’s difficult not to think about Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the lessons that the world appears not to have heeded.

In 1938, Time Magazine named Hitler "Man of the Year", with his image adorning its cover in January 1939 – the year in which he later invaded Poland. Many prominent people, including members of the British aristocracy and even Australia’s Robert Menzies, publicly expressed respect for Hitler's Nazi state.

With hindsight, apart from some crazed terrorists who still worship him, Hitler is now seen as a monstrous blight on history, with members of the Third Reich rightfully prosecuted for their genocidal crimes.

Today, a convicted felon, sexual predator and likely deranged figure – who also helped incite the Capitol Attack – sits in the White House, throwing around the might of the world’s largest military machine, threatening entire civilisations and spewing ugly words of hatred, with fingers perched perilously close to the nuclear codes, over which he has sole authority. Yet, the world, mostly, simply looks on.

All is fair in love and war, of course, as can be seen with the current disinterest in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza.

The Australian Government is not only silent to the madness, it even goes as far as to assist Trump’s America in its bullying ways.

Back in 2024, the Albanese Government brought home whistle-blower Julian Assange after 14 years of exile and imprisonment on foreign shores. This was a worthy and compassionate act, signalling that Australia, under the new Labor Government, would no longer sit idly by while innocent people were persecuted. It certainly did not look like a government that would support flagrant human rights violations.

At that time, for the most part, Independent Australia was the only Australian media outlet that continued to publicise his plight and advocate on Assange’s behalf. Shamefully, the majority of publications, both here and overseas, even those considered more progressive, simply profited from the information he shared with the world and for which he was persecuted. These outlets only finally came to Assange's defence when his release looked like a fait accompli — one from which they may further profit.

And today, just like their treatment of Assange, the silence is deafening from media outlets and commentators on the imprisonment of whistleblower and former military lawyer, David McBride. It is no surprise that few have publicly supported McBride even now, ten years after he blew the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan by Australia’s elite forces — crimes such as the murder of unarmed civilians, including children, which were later substantiated by the Brereton Inquiry.

The Albanese Government – the one that brought Assange home – now supports the actions of dangerous bullies, such as Israel’s ethnic cleansing under Netanyahu and the general madness of Trump’s America. It does so through the AUKUS agreement, by ignoring the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and the Israeli/U.S. aggression in Iran — even sending Australian troops to assist this latest evil.

And it has prosecuted and imprisoned whistleblower David McBride for exposing war crimes in Afghanistan.

This week, Australia’s most highly decorated living soldier was also arrested. Ben Roberts-Smith faces five counts of the war crime of murder, allegedly committed in Afghanistan. Roberts-Smith's arrest would not have been possible were it not for evidential documents provided by David McBride, which led to the "Afghan Files". For his trouble, McBride continues to rot in gaol.

Roberts-Smith is just the second Australian Defence Force member to face a war crimes charge under Australian law.

But even as one of the highest-level prosecutions over these atrocities unfolds, McBride continues to live out his five-year and eight-month prison sentence, branded a criminal for publicising the evidence. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus did not intervene at McBride's trial in 2024.

With Roberts-Smith, however, the testimonials from the mainstream media and high-profile commentators have been both swift and dripping with praise.

Although the alleged crimes for which Roberts-Smith is facing prosecution are particularly heinous, it matters not, apparently, because he was the recipient of lots of shiny medals.

Notable commentators jumping to his defence include Tony Abbott, Michael McCormack and Bridget McKenzie, among others. Seven Network owner and billionaire Kerry Stokes funded Roberts-Smith's earlier defence (to the tune of around $30 million). Billionaire and Australia's richest person Gina Rinehart was also quick to ask that "compassion" be extended to Roberts-Smith, and questioned the "time and taxpayer money spent on his prosecution".

Highly decorated officers are a symbol of military superiority. They evoke bravery and righteousness, making governments look powerful, and filling impressionable minds with nationalistic pride and desire for the kind of glory that can only be obtained when soldiers do the bidding of governments, by travelling the world and killing people.

McBride, however, who risked his life to expose the truth? Well, that just makes everyone look bad. Just like Assange. Just like Bernard Collaery and Witness K. Just like Troy Stolz. And just like Tax Office whistleblower Richard Boyle, who will face trial in September. 

Though David McBride's release of information about horrific war crimes by elite military personnel may well be considered "in the public interest" to the rest of us, his public interest defence failed to impress the ACT Supreme Court.

There are no effective protections for whistleblowers (despite the Public Interest Disclosure Act) because they expose the glaring and usually ugly problems within the whole system. Unless, of course, they hail from foreign systems, such as the Third Reich soldiers whose “following orders” defence was rejected at the Nuremberg trials.

The U.S.-Israeli military attacks on Iran, meanwhile, violate international law, specifically, breaching the UN Charter on the use of force, but no matter. The United States actually sanctions the International Criminal Court for attempting to investigate American war crimes. In addition, by virtue of the Bush Administration's "Hague Invasion Act" (American Servicemembers' Protection Act), which authorises the use of military force to free U.S. or U.S.-allied military personnel from attempts at prosecution for war crimes.

So, you know, try it — they dare ya. 

This editorial was originally published as part of the Independent Australia weekly newsletter. Subscribe to IA to access all our work from as little as $1.15 per week and help power our journalism in 2026.

Follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social and Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter@independentaus and Facebook HERE.

Dropping temperatures tell of winter on its way, but autumn is still having its say.

Young Marcus, tucked inside artist Rowena Martinich's sculpture "Morphogenesis" at Melbourne's Werribee Park, watches autumn leaves. (Photo, circa 2005.)

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

Angus Taylor's social media vetting of Australian values for visa holders will be costly, labour-intensive and ultimately untenable, but it's also One Nation damage control. Dr Abul Rizvi examines how such a policy might play out in practice. 

OPPOSITION LEADER ANGUS TAYLOR has proposed to make 'compliance with the Australian Values Statement a binding requirement for visa holders …and enable visas to be refused or cancelled where individuals fail to uphold these values'.

Taylor wants to:

'...establish an enhanced screening coordination centre within the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). This would also see social media screening of visa applicants move from an as-needed risk basis to become a standard feature of vetting.”

So how big would this centre have to be if such screening were to operate for all visa applicants and visa holders, noting the existing character provisions in the Migration Act are already very broad?

A first step in establishing such an arrangement would be to provide detailed guidance to the visa processing staff in the proposed centre with actual and hypothetical examples of breaches of the Australian Values Statement so that they would know what to look for.

What kind of social media posts would be a breach of, for example:

1. Commitment to the rule of law?
   Would criticism of the prosecution of Donald Trump on Facebook be a breach of this value? Would criticism of specific judges or judgments be a breach of this value? Would criticism of the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith be a breach of this value?
2. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association?
   Would criticism of certain religions be a breach of this value? Would criticism of unions be a breach of this value?
3. Equality of opportunity for all people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, or national or ethnic origin?
   Would criticism of gay people be a breach of this value? 
4. "Fair go" for all?
   Would criticism of Australia’s means-tested social welfare system be a breach of this value?

Clearly, these would be matters of degree. Just a once-off post that breaches an Australian Value may not be regarded as sufficient to lead to visa refusal or cancellation. (We don’t know as Mr Taylor hasn’t explained this). Difficult judgments may need to be made about a pattern of such breaches.

Many people use multiple social media sites, in different languages and to different degrees. Many people have been members of multiple social media sites for a decade or more. For these people, the task may take longer.

Let’s assume, on average, it takes five hours to scrutinise a person’s social media posts and make a judgment on whether they have breached an Australian Value. (That may include use of some sort of artificial intelligence to assist with the vetting.) It would include a write-up of the findings from the vetting, any natural justice process that is required and a recommendation as to whether Australian Values have or have not been sufficiently breached. This would be in addition to existing visa processes relevant to the type of visa applied for or held.

On average, there are around 250 working days per year. Using an average of an eight-hour working day, there are 2,000 working hours per year, per person. That would mean each staff member could vet the social media of around 400 visa applicants/holders per year.

On average, DHA processes more than 500,000 visa applications per month or more than 6 million per year. That would mean the proposed centre may need around 15,000 additional processing staff, plus supervisors/trainers/legal support/IT support and so on. And that is before we consider the possible vetting of the 3 million temporary entrants currently in Australia and around 4 million permanent residents.

There would inevitably be a significant increase in processing times and backlogs, which are already blowing out enormously. Many industries would feel the effects of much longer visa processing times, including tourism, education and agriculture.

And ultimately, how many people would have their visa application refused/cancelled as a result of this additional social media vetting? If the number is tiny (which is highly likely), what will we have actually achieved? Many Australian citizens regularly breach Australian Values on their social media. That includes politicians, media personalities, influencers and so on.

Taylor would know all this. So why is he making such a fuss about social media vetting for Australian Values? In one word, Hanson.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.

Our political leaders keep making tone-deaf, overbearing laws, then watch them get almost immediately wrecked by the courts, writes Tom Tanuki.

SOMEONE WROTE SOMETHING TERRIBLE on the Jewel of Coffs Harbour, the famed Big Banana. I found out this had happened, but not specifically what it was they’d said.

‘____ Israel’, said the photo.

Here it is:

Like you, I could easily picture what came before "Israel". But I was not allowed to see it. And, I was made to understand, under no circumstances should I share it around if I did see the verboten image.

Or I might go to gaol.

Speaking to ABC Coffs Coast radio, local NSW Police Superintendent Joanne Schultz said that the banana “at the lowest level” is graffiti, but “at the worst, it could be considered hate speech”.

Superintendent Schultz admitted that this sliding scale was not about the gravity of the crime so much as the broadness of the new laws:

“It’s something in the context of the legislation; it is quite broad legislation, so I would encourage people not to post that information, those images.”

She refers to NSW Government laws, introduced and then bolstered by the NSW State Government in the wake of the Bondi massacre, that threaten up to two years imprisonment for anything that occurs “in public” that is used to “intentionally incite hatred”.

NSW Police Minister, Yasmin Catley, also lined up to express horror:

“The graffiti in Coffs Harbour is appalling and police are investigating ... Antisemitism is a stain on our community and it will not be tolerated.”

What was the first word, placed just before Israel? The collective interest of a nation piqued, thrilled by the allure of the verboten.

To meet the NSW Police Minister’s definition of "antisemitic", the graffiti on the Big Banana surely far exceeded in gravity the stunt by defunct neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network, who lined up with a banner saying, ‘Abolish the Jewish lobby’ outside the NSW Parliament in November of last year.

At that stunt, former NSN member and child-marriage advocate Joel Davis conducted a speech in which he said, among many other things, that “The Jews do not want to be criticised”. That banner, and the speech spoke of Jews, not the foreign state of Israel.  It was the rank and overt antisemitism expected of the militant neo-Nazi, and it fell well in line with that group’s stated political aspirations, which included deporting all people of Jewish descent.

But the NSW Police found, incredibly, that the NSN’s banner and speeches did not ‘incite racial hatred’.

So we have all these new draconian laws we never asked for, and there’s no readily apparent way to apply them. Or, like NSW’s anti-protest laws, they’re implemented for just long enough to permit their police to beat up protesters before being speedily overturned by the courts.

So what did the Banana say?

Local Coffs Coast Instagram page, Shire Bosses, tipped me off. They located the footage that had been blurred out by every mainstream news source, and they shared it, presumably bracing themselves against the wrath of the NSW Police Force.

Get ready.

‘Fuk Israel.'

That’s it? Fuk Israel? Not even the entire word? Like a kid might write it?

I don’t know about you, but when I saw it, I literally burst out in laughter. Then I felt like crying a bit. Then I laughed more.

There you have it, audience. The NSW Police Minister’s ultimate expression of antisemitism, ranking even above coordinated militant neo-Nazi actions, is the words, ‘Fuk Israel’.

Recent polling data out of the U.S., the strongest pillar of Israel’s continued existence, shows that a clear majority of Americans now view the occupation state unfavourably. 

Greater even than last year:

'Sixty per cent of U.S. adults have an unfavourable view of Israel, up from 53 per cent last year... In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively.'

Deepcut News has shared YouGov polling, which suggests that in Australia, the population feels much the same way.

Even Shire Bosses, the abovementioned Coffs Coast Instagram page, that shared the "offending" video, conducted a little polling of their own:

There’s a Grand Canyon-sized gap between the general public’s dim view of Israel’s genocide and the slavish support for it exhibited by our political and media class. I have always viewed the cause for this as largely owing to effective long-term lobbying and relationship-making. That is to say, the general public isn’t shipped off on all-expenses-paid "study trips" to Israel, before then being directly subjected to individual lobbyist influence, like Australian politicians and journalists are. 

The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and other Zionist groups like them aren’t wasting their time on us plebs. They court power where it matters.

That’s why our political leaders keep making tone-deaf, overbearing laws that are overwhelmingly unpopular with the public — before watching those laws get almost immediately wrecked by the courts. It’s why they don’t seem to hear how loudly they’re being jeered as their various state police forces, forced to follow their lead, attempt to implement phrase bans, watermelon arrests and, now, Big Banana bans.

A good gauge of how dimly the public views the prospects for these laws to survive was the recent arrest of a man outside Boeing’s headquarters in Brisbane. Jim Dowling was protesting Boeing’s ongoing supply to the Israeli Air Force. He had a placard which said:

'From the river to the sea, Brisbane will be free of Boeing.’

I can’t and won’t speak to Jim’s motivations. But I strongly suspect that activists are now at the stage of using these stupid, dodgy, draconian laws to promote their cause. Why not? What else are they good for?

Jim Dowling told the media that he intends to plead insanity because he thinks the charge is insane.

I feel insane, too. I cannot abide by the level of ridiculousness we’ve reached.

I think "Fuk Israel" should be an ongoing feature on the Big Banana. Either by being subjected to routine defacement or, ideally, by permanently approving it as part of the design. It’s the most thrilling thing that’s ever happened to the Banana. The Coffs Coast ought to embrace it.

I demand to be able to say "fuk Israel" without going to gaol for two years. I simply insist on this.

We all know that if I do say that, I mean the genocidal, colonial wartime nation-state of Israel and its political leadership, and the bloody grip it has upon occupied Palestine.

I do not demand to discriminate against individuals, nor to have another genocide occur on top of the one Israel is already enacting.

They simply cannot delude me, nor, for that matter, the general public, out of this very simple and intuitive anti-Zionist political stance.

Well may they try, our tone-deaf leaders and their stupid coppers. But in the end, if they try it with enough of us, they won’t have anyone left standing with them. We’ll all be together, arm-in-arm, beneath the anti-Zionist Big Banana.

Tom Tanuki is an IA columnist, writer, satirist and anti-fascist activist whose weekly videos commenting on the Australian political fringe appear on YouTube. You can follow him on Twitter/X @tom_tanuki.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has thrown a "warm protective blanket" over Sean Black — violent convicted rapist, wife-beater and purveyor of chaos. Investigations editor Ross Jones reports.

According to The Australian:

'The quarterly analysis of Newspolls published between January 12 and March 26 reveals rising support for One Nation across all demographics.'

The Canberra bubble’s assumption of what the stereotypical One Nation voter looks like is being blown out of the water. For example, more women than men support One Nation.

If this is true, it's probably because the women polled had never heard of Sean Black and are unaware of the warm protective blanket Pauline Hanson’s One Nation affords this violent, convicted rapist, wife-beater and purveyor of chaos.

Until very recently, Black was PHON’s campaign director, one of the party’s innermost inner circle.

Sky News on 13 April 2026 reported:

'Pauline Hanson says she has sacked the convicted rapist who worked as One Nation’s campaign manager, but accused Coalition MPs of playing “gutter politics” by criticising her decision to rehire him.'

All we have is Hanson’s word that Black was sacked — and she does have a way with words.

According to Sky:

'Talking to Sky News on Sunday evening, Ms Hanson said she “shot this man in question in front of his wife, with his two children in the other room” earlier that day.'

That’s one way of dealing with staff.

Pauline’s not happy about sacking Black, though.

Hanson said:

It’s gutter politics… and it sickens me to what has happened.

 

[Black] did his time for the crime he was convicted of and that, and now he was trying to get on with his life...

What now? What happens? Put him on the scrapheap? Or should we bring in the death penalty for anyone who commits a crime?

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

'One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce says the convicted rapist sacked from the minor party’s headquarters on Sunday was the victim of a political smear job as he had served his time.'

Before his conviction for the rape and violent assault of his first wife, Black had led a "colourful" career — including, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, accusations of:

'... bullying and flying into fits of uncontrollable rage during his years as a Queensland local councillor, tried to set up the Australian version of the U.S. Tea Party fringe group and was kicked out of a restaurant when he threw a coaster at a man wearing a T-shirt insulting Tony Abbott.'

During his years as a real estate agent, Mr Black was also accused of rent-bidding — and was named in Queensland Parliament by former Labor Housing Minister Robert Schwarten for engaging in the "un-Australian" activity.

July 2016 saw four PHON senators elected — undischarged bankrupt Rodney Culleton in WA, Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts in Queensland and Brian Burston in NSW.

By October 2016, Black had been hired as a staffer for Roberts.

Brian Burston, who, as a new Senator, was closely involved with the workings of PHON at that time, told IA:

“Black is a close mate of James Ashby and it was Ashby who got him hired. It was his decision. Pauline will do whatever Ashby says. He controls her, even answers her phone.”

Then-minister Schwarten reportedly said of Black’s first stint as a One Nation staffer to Senator Roberts:

"Every organisation he has ever touched he has blighted. It's hard to believe anyone could discredit One Nation but believe me he will do that. It will prove to be an own goal for them, having him there."

On 24 May 2017, Black was charged by Queensland Police with rape and six counts of assault.

'Black’s arrest was widely reported but the rape charge, confirmed at the time by Queensland police to Guardian Australia, could not be made public for legal rasons.'

Whether Black confided the nature of his charges to Roberts is unclear, but Roberts kept him on until he himself was turfed out of the Senate in October 2017, in the great s44 debacle. 

In July 2018, the ABC reported:

Former One Nation adviser Sean Black sentenced to five years' jail for raping his former wife.

 

In sentencing, Judge Glen Cash said it was clear Black was willing to use violence to dominate his relationship.

The ABC report also detailed the nature of the violence:

Earlier this month Black was convicted of raping his former wife Tanya in a bathroom in 2007, pushing her down stairs and crushing her hand in a door.

 

The judge said Black dragged her out by the hair from the shower and raped her.

 

"That night… you told her it wasn't rape, because she was your wife," he said.

The trial judge noted Black showed no remorse for his crimes:

“Ex-wife of former One Nation adviser says being grilled over her rape 're-traumatised' her.”

Black’s ex-wife, Tanya, endured further torture at his trial because:

Black did not take the stand, but Tanya faced more than 12 hours of questioning.

 

Her vindication by a jury followed years of threats from a man who claimed he was protected by powerful connections from a career that took him from the state Labor party to Logan City Council, the LNP and Canberra in One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts's office.

 

She was concerned about her former partner's aggressive behaviour escalating.

 

"The threat had always been, if this ever goes to court, I will kill you," she said. "It was a very real threat to me."

Even after the pair split, Tanya took Black’s threats of further harm seriously and lived in fear, telling the ABC she:

“... did not go to police until nine years after the attacks, which she said was a last resort at the urging of a social worker.”

Black served two years and three months in the can, getting out in October 2020, and walking straight back into his old job:

'Sean Black, who in 2018 was gaoled for rape and subsequently lost his appeal against the conviction, was initially rehired by One Nation in 2020 as a campaign director after serving his time.'

By the time Black was re-hired, the details of his domestic violence had been public for some time and were well-known to the upper party echelons.

Government figures show that in 2023–2024, one Australian woman was killed every eight days by intimate partner violence.

One in four Australian women has experienced intimate partner violence. In 2023-2024, nine out of ten hospitalisations as a result of intimate partner violence were women.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation does not care about the thousands of Australian women who live in constant fear or worse.

It does not care about the thousands of traumatised children who witness their mother being bashed by a coward.

All it does is bleat about the outcry over Black being "gutter politics".

The principle that former criminals deserve the chance of re-admittance into civilised life once they have served their sentence is sound and necessary – we can all make mistakes.

But men who beat women in front of their children are not in that category.

Ross Jones is IA's investigations editor and the author of the two-year investigation, Ashbygate: the plot to destroy Australia's Speaker, published by IA in 2015 and available HERE.

Dear Attorney-General Rowland,

This letter concerns the continued imprisonment of David McBride — a man who has exhausted every legal avenue available to him, and whose case now turns on a question the courts could not resolve: whether justice is served by what remains.

Mr McBride was sentenced to five years and eight months imprisonment in May 2024, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The ACT Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The High Court declined to hear his case. He remains in custody, eligible for parole no earlier than August 2026.

Mr McBride is now 61 years old. He served our country as a military lawyer, deploying twice to Afghanistan. He came home with post-traumatic stress disorder. He has two daughters. He has been living under the weight of these proceedings since 2018 — more than seven years. Whatever one concludes about the legal questions in his case, these are the facts of a human life.

Whatever the legal characterisation of his conduct, it brought serious questions into the open about the conduct of Australia’s military operations and the accountability of the state.

He was a military lawyer who served for eight years and acted in the reasonable belief that he was serving the public interest. Whatever the legal characterisation of his conduct, it brought serious questions into the open about the conduct of Australia’s military operations and the accountability of the state.

He never acted for personal gain or notoriety. He acted on conscience, and in the belief that the wrongdoing was harmful and should not remain hidden.

The courts have reached their final position and the conviction stands — but the responsibility of your office does not end there. There are moments in our history where the continued enforcement of a lawful outcome must be weighed against something larger than the proceedings that produced it: the public interest, and the question of what justice actually requires in the circumstances.

A notable precedent is the discontinuance of the prosecution of Bernard Collaery in 2022. That matter, arising from the Timor-Leste espionage case, was brought to an end by the Commonwealth on public interest grounds. The decision reflected a recognition that the continuation of proceedings may, in some circumstances, do more harm to confidence in the administration of justice than good.

That decision was not an abandonment of the rule of law — it was an exercise of judgment within it, and a recognition that justice sometimes requires more prudence than the law alone can provide.

The present case arises at a later stage — after conviction, after appeal, after the High Court has declined to intervene. But the principle is no different: justice – in its natural and common law sense – encompasses more than the outcome of statutory proceedings alone.

The context in which those proceedings arose should be stated plainly. Mr McBride raised his concerns within the chain of command before approaching the media. Those reports were not acted upon. He then disclosed documents to the ABC, which became the basis for the Afghan Files reporting.

The mechanisms available to you – clemency, pardon, or remission of sentence – exist for precisely this kind of case; they do not displace the courts, but recognise that justice is not exhausted by adjudication alone.

A subsequent government inquiry – the Brereton Inquiry – found credible evidence that members of the Australian Special Forces had committed war crimes in Afghanistan. That was the Commonwealth’s own finding.

In recent days, the public context of this case has shifted further. On 7 April 2026, a former Australian Special Forces soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith VC, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of war crime murder arising from conduct in Afghanistan.

These charges, brought after years of investigation, concern allegations strikingly similar in nature to those exposed through the Afghan Files reporting. The juxtaposition is unavoidable: the individual who brought such matters into public view remains imprisoned, while those alleged to have committed them are only now being called to account.

Mr McBride was not permitted to advance a public interest defence at trial. The government sought, and obtained, public interest immunity over documents his legal team sought to rely upon. He pleaded guilty in those circumstances. The sentencing judge stated expressly that the severity of the sentence was intended to deter others from similar conduct.

 
Until very recently, no member of the Australian Defence Force had been imprisoned in connection with the conduct examined by the Brereton Inquiry. Mr McBride has.

Does the continued imprisonment of David McBride serve the public interest, or the demands of natural justice?

The mechanisms available to you – clemency, pardon, or remission of sentence – exist for precisely this kind of case; they do not displace the courts, but recognise that justice is not exhausted by adjudication alone.

The only question is whether your office chooses to meet that moment with mercy or to wait.

It is also relevant that Mr McBride has been subject to these proceedings since 2018 — a period of nearly seven years. He becomes eligible for parole in August 2026. An act of mercy now would bring forward, by months, an outcome the sentence itself already anticipates. It would not set aside what the courts have determined. It would recognise what has already been paid.

David McBride served his country. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was continuing to serve it when he acted. He has paid a heavy price — and he will be eligible for release in a matter of months regardless. The only question is whether your office chooses to meet that moment with mercy or to wait.

Your urgent consideration of this matter is appreciated, and a compassionate response is anticipated.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel James Carney, Writer, researcher, historian and economist 

Ageing well is not about slowing down. It is about making informed choices that protect your health, preserve your independence and support the quality of life you want to maintain for as long as possible.

Australia has one of the longest life expectancies in the world. But longevity alone is not the goal. The real measure is how many of those years are lived actively, comfortably and on your own terms.

This guide covers the practical steps Australians can take at different stages of life to support healthy ageing, from the clinical environments that shape healthcare outcomes to the nutritional foundations that protect long-term health, to the mobility tools that keep independence intact when physical capacity changes.

Why the healthcare environment matters more than most people realise

Most Australians interact with the healthcare system regularly as they age. GP visits, specialist appointments, allied health sessions, dental care, and pharmacy consultations all become more frequent over time.

The quality of those interactions is shaped in part by the clinical environment itself. A well-designed medical space reduces patient anxiety, improves workflow efficiency for practitioners, and supports better clinical outcomes by minimising the operational friction that leads to errors and delays.

This is not abstract. Research in healthcare design consistently shows that patients in purpose-built clinical environments report higher satisfaction, better communication with practitioners and greater trust in the care they receive.

For practitioners building or upgrading health facilities, the fitout decision is one of the most consequential investments they will make. The space shapes how care is delivered for years or even decades after the renovation is complete.

Clinics that engage specialists in medical fit outs design clinical environments that integrate workflow, patient comfort, infection control and equipment placement into a coherent system from the outset.

This is particularly important in general practice, allied health, and dental settings where practitioners spend their entire working day in the space and where the physical environment directly affects both clinical precision and staff wellbeing.

A poorly designed clinic creates friction at every step. A well-designed one removes it and the difference accumulates over thousands of patient interactions.

Nutrition as a long-term investment in healthy ageing

The relationship between nutrition and healthy ageing is well established. What changes as people get older is which nutritional priorities matter most and how the body responds to what is consumed.

Protein becomes increasingly important from the mid-forties onward. Sarcopenia, the gradual loss of muscle mass that occurs with age, is one of the primary drivers of functional decline in older adults. Adequate protein intake, combined with resistance-based physical activity, is the most effective intervention available for slowing this process.

Older adults typically need between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day, which is higher than the general adult recommendation and considerably higher than most people in this age group actually consume.

Micronutrient needs also shift with age. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread among older Australians, particularly those with limited sun exposure, and its effects on bone density, immune function, and mood are significant.

Magnesium, omega-3 fatty acids and B vitamins are other areas where dietary intake frequently falls short in older adults, and where targeted supplementation produces measurable benefits.

Choosing the right supplements matters as much as choosing to supplement at all. Product quality, bioavailability and formulation vary considerably across the Australian market.

For Australians looking for evidence-informed options without unnecessary fillers or synthetic additives, natural health supplements from a reputable provider offer a cleaner foundation for supporting the nutritional gaps that commonly emerge with age.

The goal is not to replace a nutrient-dense diet. It is to address the specific shortfalls that diet alone does not reliably cover for most older adults.

Physical activity: What works and what changes with age

Exercise remains one of the most powerful interventions for healthy ageing at any stage of life. The evidence base on this is unambiguous and consistent across decades of research.

What changes with age is the emphasis and the risk management around exercise, not the importance of it.

Resistance training becomes more rather than less important as people get older. Building and maintaining muscle mass reduces the risk of falls, supports metabolic health and preserves functional capacity for the activities of daily life.

Two to three sessions per week of moderate-intensity resistance work, using bodyweight, resistance bands, or weights, is achievable for most older adults and produces significant benefits within weeks of consistent practice.

Balance and flexibility training reduces fall risk, which is one of the leading causes of hospitalisation and functional decline in adults over sixty-five. Tai chi, yoga and targeted balance exercises all have strong evidence bases for fall prevention.

Cardiovascular exercise supports heart health, brain function, and emotional wellbeing. Walking remains one of the most accessible and effective forms of aerobic exercise for older adults, and the evidence for its benefits at even moderate volumes is compelling.

The key principle across all exercise categories is consistency over intensity. A sustainable routine that happens three to four times per week produces far better long-term outcomes than occasional intense sessions followed by extended gaps.

Managing pain, fatigue and the conditions that accumulate over time

Chronic pain, fatigue and the management of age-related conditions are realities for many older Australians that deserve practical attention rather than avoidance.

Osteoarthritis, cardiovascular conditions, type two diabetes and osteoporosis all become more prevalent with age. Most are manageable with the right combination of medical oversight, lifestyle modifications and supportive care.

Sleep quality tends to deteriorate with age in ways that compound other health challenges. Sleep affects immune function, pain perception, cognitive performance, and emotional regulation, making it a priority area rather than a secondary concern.

Pain management is a conversation worth having with a GP rather than self-managing through over-the-counter medications indefinitely. Physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, and targeted exercise programmes often produce better long-term outcomes than pharmaceutical management alone for musculoskeletal conditions.

Maintaining social connection is also a health intervention in the most literal sense. Social isolation in older adults is associated with significantly higher rates of cognitive decline, depression and premature mortality. Prioritising regular social engagement, whether through community activities, family connections, or structured group programmes, produces measurable health benefits.

Mobility and independence: Practical tools that change what is possible

Physical changes in later life do not have to mean a reduction in independence or participation in the activities that matter most. The right mobility tools expand what is possible rather than marking a retreat from active life.

Mobility aids have evolved considerably in both design and functionality. Modern options are more compact, more reliable, and more accessible than previous generations of equipment and the range of situations they support has broadened significantly.

For older Australians who want to maintain community access and independence without the physical demands of walking long distances, a mobility scooter provides a practical solution that supports continued participation in shopping, social activities, community events, and outdoor recreation.

The decision to use a mobility scooter is not an endpoint. For many people, it is what makes it possible to stay engaged in the activities and social connections that support healthy ageing rather than withdrawing from them due to physical limitation.

Practical considerations when choosing a mobility scooter include battery range, maximum speed, turning radius for indoor and outdoor use, weight capacity, and portability if the scooter needs to be transported in a vehicle.

Many Australians are eligible for subsidised equipment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme or through state-based aged care programmes. Checking eligibility before purchasing privately is worth doing to understand what funding options may be available.

Home modifications that support safe, independent living

The home environment becomes increasingly important as physical capacity changes. Small modifications made proactively reduce fall risk and extend the period during which independent living is safe and practical.

Bathroom modifications including grab rails, non-slip surfaces and a raised toilet seat address the highest-risk area in most homes without requiring structural renovation.

Good lighting throughout the home, particularly in hallways and on stairs, reduces fall risk significantly. Nightlights activated by motion sensors are a low-cost intervention that addresses the elevated fall risk during night-time movements.

Removing floor clutter, securing loose rugs and ensuring frequently used items are within easy reach without the need to climb or stretch all contribute to a safer environment without major investment.

Occupational therapists provide professional home assessments that identify specific risk factors and recommend modifications tailored to individual needs. Many older Australians access these assessments at subsidised cost through the My Aged Care system.

Building a support network that works

Ageing well is supported by a network of people and services, not managed in isolation.

A regular GP relationship is the foundation. A GP who knows your history, monitors key health indicators over time and coordinates specialist referrals when needed provides continuity of care that cannot be replicated by episodic appointments with different practitioners.

Allied health professionals including physiotherapists, dietitians, exercise physiologists, and podiatrists each address specific aspects of healthy ageing and are accessible through Medicare's chronic disease management plans for eligible patients.

Carer support, whether from family members, community volunteers, or paid care workers, becomes increasingly relevant as needs change. Planning for this in advance, rather than responding to a crisis, gives more options and better outcomes.

Aged care planning through My Aged Care provides access to home care packages, respite care, and residential aged care services. Understanding what is available and how to access it before a need becomes urgent makes the transition considerably smoother when it does.

The long view

Healthy ageing in Australia is not a passive outcome of good genetics or fortunate circumstance. It is the result of deliberate choices made across decades, supported by the right clinical environments, nutritional foundations, physical activity habits, mobility tools, and social connections.

The best time to start making those choices is earlier than most people do. The second best time is now.

Australian country weddings have become increasingly popular, offering a relaxed yet romantic alternative to traditional city celebrations. From picturesque vineyards and rustic farms to breezy coastal countryside settings and charming small-town churches, these venues create a naturally beautiful backdrop that feels warm and inviting.

What sets a country wedding apart is its effortless atmosphere. The overall style leans toward natural, relaxed, elegant and unpretentious. As a guest, your goal is to reflect that mood through your outfit. This guide will walk you through everything you need to know about country wedding guest dress ideas, helping you strike the perfect balance between ease and elegance.

Understanding the dress code: Australian wedding style culture

Common Dress Code Types

Australian weddings often include a dress code on the invitation. Understanding these categories will help you avoid underdressing or overdressing.

• Smart casual: A refined version of everyday wear, such as a midi dress or a button-down shirt with tailored pants
• Semi-formal: More polished, including structured dresses or coordinated separates
• Cocktail: Dressy and stylish, but still less formal than evening wear
• Garden / Country wedding: Light, breathable and suited to outdoor settings

Key characteristics of Australian wedding attire

Australian wedding fashion is shaped by both climate and lifestyle.

There are a few defining features to keep in mind:

• Practicality is essential, especially for outdoor venues with grass or uneven ground.
• Overly formal outfits are generally discouraged, unless the invitation specifies "Black Tie".
• Colour choices are more flexible and expressive, but white and ivory should always be avoided.

Core styling ideas for country wedding guest dresses

1. Fabric choices

Fabric plays a crucial role in both comfort and appearance. Outdoor weddings often involve warm temperatures and natural surroundings, so breathable materials are ideal.

• Cotton: lightweight and easy to wear.
• Linen: perfect for hot weather with a relaxed texture.
• Chiffon: flowy and elegant, great for movement.

These fabrics enhance the overall aesthetic by creating a soft, natural drape that complements the countryside setting.

2. Colour palette

Colour selection can instantly define your look. For a country wedding, softer and more organic tones work best.

Recommended colors include:

• Earth tones such as beige, khaki, and olive green.
• Soft floral shades like blush pink, light blue, and lavender.

Colours to avoid include:

• Pure white or cream, as they are traditionally reserved for the bride.
• Extremely bright neon shades or heavy, formal black.

3. Patterns and prints

Patterns add personality and visual interest to your outfit.

• Floral prints are the most popular choice and perfectly match the setting.
• Polka dots offer a playful yet classic feel.
• Gingham and subtle checks enhance the rustic aesthetic.

Women’s outfit inspiration

1. Dress styles to consider

When exploring country wedding guest dress ideas, certain silhouettes stand out for their versatility and charm.

Floral maxi dress: Flowy and romantic, ideal for vineyard or outdoor ceremonies.

Tea dress: A vintage-inspired style that is feminine and easy to wear.

Wrap dress: Flattering on all body types and comfortable for long events.

These styles not only suit the environment but also allow ease of movement throughout the day.

2. Footwear choices

Choosing the right shoes is especially important for outdoor weddings.

• Block heel sandals or wedges provide stability on grass.
• Ankle boots are a great option for cooler seasons.

Avoid stilettos, as they can easily sink into soft ground and become impractical.

3. Accessories

Accessories should enhance your look without overpowering it.

• Straw or woven bags complement the countryside aesthetic.
• Wide-brim hats add both style and sun protection.
• Simple gold jewelry or pearl pieces keep the look elegant and understated.

Men’s outfit inspiration

1. Essential outfit combinations

Men’s country wedding attire should be relaxed yet polished.

• A linen shirt paired with tailored trousers is a reliable choice.
• A lightweight blazer can elevate the look without making it too formal.

2. Colour suggestions

Natural tones work best in a countryside setting.

• Light blue.
• Beige.
• Grey.
• Brown.

Subtle patterns such as stripes or checks can add dimension while maintaining a refined appearance.

3. Footwear options

Footwear should balance comfort and style.

• Loafers are a classic and versatile option.
• Leather casual shoes offer a polished finish.
• Clean sneakers may be acceptable depending on the dress code.

Dressing by season in Australia

Seasonal awareness is especially important when attending a wedding in Australia due to its varied climate.

Summer weddings (December – February)

• Choose lightweight and breathable fabrics.
• Opt for loose silhouettes and light colours.
• Sun protection is essential, including hats and sunscreen.

Autumn and Winter weddings (June – August)

• Layer with knitwear, coats, or tailored outerwear.
• Select thicker fabrics such as velvet or knit blends.
• Closed-toe shoes or boots are more suitable.

Spring weddings (September – November)

• Floral prints are particularly appropriate.
• Light layering helps adapt to changing temperatures.
• Soft colours and airy fabrics work beautifully.

What not to wear to a country wedding

To ensure your outfit is appropriate, avoid these common mistakes:

• Wearing shades of white – or nearly white – is the colour of most wedding dresses.
• Choosing overly formal attire such as formal gowns.
• Dressing too casually with items like denim shorts or flip-flops.
• Ignoring the venue and terrain when selecting shoes.

Practical tips to elevate your look

A few thoughtful details can make a big difference in your overa.ll experience.

• Always check the dress code on the invitation.
• Keep an eye on the weather forecast ahead of time.
• Bring a backup pair of shoes for outdoor settings.
• Consider sun protection, including sunglasses and SPF.

Conclusion: Embrace effortless elegance

Dressing for a country wedding is all about embracing a style that feels natural, comfortable, and refined. By focusing on breathable fabrics, soft colour palettes and practical choices, you can create a look that fits seamlessly into the setting.

Ultimately, the best country wedding guest outfit is one that reflects both the environment and your personal style. Stay true to the principles of comfort, simplicity and elegance, and you will always look appropriate and stylish. If you’re still searching for the perfect look, you can explore a wide range of elegant and affordable options at Azazie to find a dress that suits both the setting and your personal taste.

Read: Epstein files and 'friendly' fire.

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

Beach Bars, now known as “Dining Precincts”, have been secretly planned for areas on the Gold Coast sand at Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach. IA Founder, David Donovan, investigates.

The latest meeting agenda for the City of Gold Coast (COGC) Planning and Regulation Committee reveals that council officers have been working secretly on new Beach Bar proposals for Gold Coast beaches. The Beach Bars, now known as “Dining Precincts”, have been secretly planned for areas on the sand in front of the Surfers Paradise Surf Life Saving Club (SPSLC) and the Kurrawa Surf Life Saving Club (KSLSC).

The original 3-month 2022 Beach Bar Trial at Kurrawa, operated by a company based in Melbourne (Australian Venue Co — owned by a large U.S. investment fund), was a dismal failure. The COGC reported that approximately 44,000 people attended the venue and yet it only partially operated on 47 days (out of a possible 76 of trade) due to typical Gold Coast summer storm conditions.

Add to that the loss of public amenity to the local community, and the fact that the ratepayers footed the bill for the trial (COGC did not charge Australian Venue Co rent for the site or any waste, water, or infrastructure fees), meant that there was zero return on investment for the local community.

 
As a result, then Queensland Resources Minister Scott Stewart, recognising the community’s opposition via a submission from Surfrider Australia, instructed the COGC that “Owners Consent” would not be provided by the State for any further plans for a Beach Bar in Kurrawa. If the COGC wishes to continue with their plans, they will need to consult with the local community through an area Master Plan and apply for a Material Change of Use (MCU) for the site. COGC resolved to continue with their plans in late 2022.

However, there is no record of any Master Plan or Community Engagement program being publicly reported by the COGC, nor any record of an MCU being registered with the state.

Minister Stewart made it clear publicly that the local community had sent him clear signals about the issues surrounding the Kurrawa Beach Bar Trial, which assisted Resources in making decisions about the use of State Government land in the area, he said:

“Many years of consistent public advocacy from the Surfrider Foundation has allowed for the local community on the Gold Coast to clearly articulate its preference for beaches to remain as public assets.” 

Member for Surfers Paradise, John-Paul Langbroek, has today demanded that the Gold Coast City Council dump its Surfers Paradise beachfront plaza and reopen The Esplanade to traffic, which is where the new “Dining Precinct” is located.

 
Langbroek, who has obviously been kept in the dark about the COGC Beach Bar plans, has stated that the lack of emergency access and community opposition are reasons to reopen The Esplanade.

Langbroek said:

“I have been waiting to hear Council’s plan for The Esplanade and I am calling for them to reopen it.” 

Community Alliance Association President John Hicks said that his organisation opposes commercialisation and privatisation of the beaches as “they are public assets owned by all in the community, not by the council". 

Hicks said that the council’s own community engagement on the Broadbeach foreshore plan and previous Kurrawa Beach Club option confirms that most in the community share this view, and his organisation will be calling on the COGC to come clean with the residents of the Gold Coast.

The next meeting of the City of Gold Coast (COGC) Planning and Regulation Committee will take place on Tuesday, 21 April 2026.

The world is on the edge of an abyss; independence and sovereignty must be struggled for if we are to live in anything like peace and security as capitalism unravels, warns Dr William Briggs.

THE FACTORY WORKER in Tehran, the shopkeeper in Beirut, the taxi driver in Tel Aviv all share one desire. They all want a chance to live in peace and yet all are denied that simple wish.

These workers, their families, and billions like them around the world should not have to live in fear. Their immediate futures and their very lives are dominated by other forces. All want a ceasefire to become a lasting peace, but the Middle East is unlikely to know lasting peace, or at least not until a fundamental change takes place.

The world, for good or ill, and most certainly the balance is on the side of ill, remains dominated by the economic rules of capitalism. Economies must expand, economic power must be maintained and profit must grow. National economies are tied to globally linked corporations. Security in such a world comes from exerting pressure, enforcing power and keeping rivals at bay. None of this is good news for any of us and the more so if you happen to live in or around the oil-producing Middle East.

Economic power, strategic interests and great power rivalry focus on the region and have done so for decades. Whomsoever controls the oil and the geography of the region controls the world. The thinking has not changed, but things have been changing. Capitalism is simply no longer able to exist in an ever-expanding economic universe of its own creation.

The economic crisis is affecting the entire global market. Economic blocs vie with each other for survival. Economic pressure and military threat become more pronounced as this crisis deepens.

And central to this is the steady decline in U.S. power as its arch-rival and competitor, China’s star rises.

The U.S., in happier, more stable days, could be assured that such an important region as the Middle East was securely within its orbit, but no more. As the world scrambles for control of natural resources, the U.S. has described China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as an authoritarian axis, which is but a rebranding of George W. Bush's rhetoric of an 'axis of evil'.

Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Korea, and North Korea sends weapons to Russia. This is doubtless the case, but it is how the U.S. and its allies have always operated. It is called global trade or rather international relations, or, in the case of an "enemy", a link in an unacceptable "authoritarian" chain.

For the Middle East, this has meant a need, on the part of the U.S., to choke Iran, thereby cutting off, at the source, the global interactions between its designated enemies.

It has led to war. The war was premeditated and unprovoked. The Iranian regime is by any standards a reprehensible one, but change can only come from within and not from the smoking barrels of American guns or from missile attacks.

The war, like all wars, is about power, control and economic strength. The war, like all wars, promotes nationalist responses. The region is now more dislocated than ever and all the old verities are being shown to be shattered.

This particular outburst of imperial rage did not spring from the air. It has, for the U.S. and for its placeman, Israel, an absolute need and that is to stall the loss of American domination of the region and its slide from global hegemonic power.

This self-evident truth allowed the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, speaking earlier this year, to proclaim that what was at stake was a struggle for the revival of Western civilisation. That call for a renewed imperialist and colonialist world order had its terrifying echo when Trump declared that 'a civilisation will die' when he threatened Iran.

That apocalyptic vision remains unfulfilled, but Rubio’s call for a revival of Western civilisation is still very much on the agenda. It means, in effect, a continued U.S.-dominated capitalist order, with vassal states being coerced and national sovereignty a fading concept.

While Canute might demand that the tide not rise, the reality is that capitalism is in crisis and a great struggle between rival capitalist superpowers rages to determine who will reign briefly supreme. The tide still rises.

Israel, which has played an ever more important role in maintaining U.S. power in the region, is increasingly isolated and survives because of its military might and the might of its American sponsor.

What should be obvious to all with eyes to see, is that the status quo in the Middle East cannot remain. The genocide in Gaza, the destruction of the West Bank, the barbaric attacks on Lebanon will never secure peace. Those who firmly state that Israel has a right to exist are correct, insofar as any state has a right to exist. Whether a state exists in perpetuity is another matter. How it is governed is still another.

The Israeli regime cannot continue in its present state of perpetual war. What today seems an impossibility may well become a necessity. That possibility is for a democratic, secular state that admits the equal participation of all, including the Palestinian people. Security and peace for all would demand a multi-ethnic state. That will never be countenanced by the U.S., which demands a strong and belligerent ally in the region to act as a sub-imperialist power, but things have changed and are changing.

Survival and self-interest, or subservience to the dictates of a fading imperial power. Independence or subjugation. These should not be choices. A better way is possible. None of that would diminish the crisis that plagues capitalism, but American capitalism would not fall if it sought to deal equitably, first with its allies and then with its rivals. That, of course, is a fantasy.

Capitalism is not about sharing. Global power is not about working for the common good. The problems that beset capitalist relations in the 21st Century have led to the war in Iran. Those same problems see a threat of a regional war escalating into a global war. Those problems see the constant building up of arms industries and finding enemies where there are none. It drives a war mentality that would see Australia drawn into an American war against China.

What then is to be done? The call must be: no to war, no to U.S.-inspired wars, no to economic enslavement. The call locally, nationally and globally, for national independence and the striving for mutual benefit in the name of peace, stability and security needs to be heard.

The factory worker in Tehran, the shopkeeper in Beirut, and the taxi driver in Tel Aviv are no different from their Australian counterparts. We all share a common humanity and a common enemy. Capitalism will go on tearing itself and the world apart, but we can and must demand the right to a decent life and to a future.

Dr William Briggs is a political economist. His special areas of interest lie in political theory and international political economy. He has been, variously, a teacher, journalist and political activist.

The Australian disability sector is currently at a crossroads. As the NDIS evolves under financial and regulatory pressure, Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers face a perfect storm of thin margins and workforce shortages. While many view the sector through a bureaucratic lens, a new collective of industry leaders argues that sustainability is found in returning to the heart of the home.

Tania Gomez, a leading NDIS consultant and compiler of the guide Future-Proofing Your SIL Business, suggests the reality of SIL is often high risk. She notes that a provider can change the course of a life, but as Ryan Simon observes from his own lived experience, "People remember how you made them feel, not what your policy said."

One of the most striking insights is the economic link between participant well-being and business survival. In an environment where margins are barely two per cent, efficiencies are vital. Josh Pix, a specialist in NDIS claiming, is blunt about the stakes: "You can’t run a quality service on broken cash flow." He highlights that providers often leak significant revenue due to mismatched rosters.

Workforce stability is equally critical. Charlene Woodbine argues that "Retention isn’t about perks. It’s about purpose." When staff feel that purpose, incident reports decrease and families rebuild trust.

The "group home" model of the past is being replaced by a relationship-based approach. As we look toward the future, the collective wisdom in this book serves as a roadmap for a sector that is too important to leave to chance.

]]>

The Australian disability sector is currently at a crossroads. As the NDIS evolves under financial and regulatory pressure, Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers face a perfect storm of thin margins and workforce shortages. While many view the sector through a bureaucratic lens, a new collective of industry leaders argues that sustainability is found in returning to the heart of the home.

Tania Gomez, a leading NDIS consultant and compiler of the guide Future-Proofing Your SIL Business, suggests the reality of SIL is often high risk. She notes that a provider can change the course of a life, but as Ryan Simon observes from his own lived experience, "People remember how you made them feel, not what your policy said."

One of the most striking insights is the economic link between participant well-being and business survival. In an environment where margins are barely two per cent, efficiencies are vital. Josh Pix, a specialist in NDIS claiming, is blunt about the stakes: "You can’t run a quality service on broken cash flow." He highlights that providers often leak significant revenue due to mismatched rosters.

Workforce stability is equally critical. Charlene Woodbine argues that "Retention isn’t about perks. It’s about purpose." When staff feel that purpose, incident reports decrease and families rebuild trust.

The "group home" model of the past is being replaced by a relationship-based approach. As we look toward the future, the collective wisdom in this book serves as a roadmap for a sector that is too important to leave to chance.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nuclear-now-climate-change-great-powers-still-plague-the-pacific,20911?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 10 Apr 2026 11:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nuclear-now-climate-change-great-powers-still-plague-the-pacific,20911?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Updated research has shown up lingering headaches over the impacts of decades-long nuclear testing in the Pacific islands and interventions of outside powers, amid growing threats from climate change, writes Dr Lee Duffield.

THE JOURNALIST, Professor and peace activist David Robie, was one of a media party on the ill-fated voyage of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in 1985, before its sinking by French security operatives in Auckland Harbour. He wrote a definitive book about the lead-up in the region to the fatal sinking of the ship with explosive mines; unmasking of the plot made in Paris; attempts to obtain justice and a long aftermath with demands for empowerment by former “colonial” people, to prevent such outrages in their island homelands.

The book is Eyes of Fire, published in 1986, then successively updated as the story unfolded, with new facts and consequences of the outrage coming to light. It ran to three revised editions, the last out now to commemorate 40 years since the attack took place. It therefore marked 40 years since the death of the Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, a Portuguese-born Dutch national, aged 35, father of one child, drowned on board after the second of two blasts that hit the ship.

Eyes of Fire is a highly professional work of journalism, built out of investigation and documentation of facts, then fashioned into an accessible read; illustrated also with easy-to-comprehend maps and diagrams, showing where the ship travelled and where the bombs were planted against its hull, plus photographs from a copious accumulation built up as the Greenpeace movement generated publicity for its actions worldwide.

VOYAGE OF THE WARRIOR

One section describes the Rainbow Warrior, appreciatively and affectionately: a former fisheries research vessel, a trawler type, 50-metres in length, with some difficulty converted for sail as well as power, made into a 'proud campaign ship', painted a strong green with a long rainbow-emblem along the sides.

'The wheelhouse was rather lumpy and unattractive but the rest of the ship was appealing. She had a high North Sea prow, graceful sheerline and round-the-corner stern.'

 

For the record...

The Rainbow Warrior sailed from Hawaii – taking on board seven journalists and some leading figures from the Pacific communities, to the Marshall Islands – where it evacuated the inhabitants of a nuclear afflicted island, Rongelap, to an uninhabited island Mejatto in its archipelago. Pacific distances are great. They transported 350 people – with lumber and belongings – in four trips, 250-kilometres there and back. The islanders were suffering from contamination by the infamous upwind explosion of the experimental thermonuclear weapon, Castle Bravo, in 1954 — causing thyroid disorders, cancers and constant miscarriages and birthing disorders. Dissatisfied that health officials sent by the United States administration were more interested in research than care, they decided to leave. The key instigator was Marshall Islands legislator Senator Jeton Anjain. He was one of two Pacific Islands leaders with prominent roles in Robie’s narrative.

The other was Oscar Temaru, a town mayor in Tahiti, also elected as the territory’s President on five occasions.

Temaru spoke for many when he said:

“The sad truth is that the only ones who tried to help us are the Greenpeace ecologists…”

A native American woman named Eyes of Fire had told a Greenpeace member about a legend, that where there was dispossession and despoilation of the land and culture, in time mythical warriors – deliverers – would come, who would mend and restore both. So the peace-ship offering aid would be a Rainbow Warrior.

The author, Robie, in his news despatches for Radio New Zealand, judged the evacuation project a change for Greenpeace towards humanitarian work connected with environmental destruction: 

“This isn’t a game or the sort of action publicity stunt that Greenpeace would do so successfully.”

But the next part of the journey was another dramatic action, in Marshall Islands, at the U.S. missile testing base on Kwajalein Atoll. A party from the ship went ashore, got through perimeter wires and hoisted a banner inscribed “Stop Star Wars” onto a space tracking dome, escaping before the arrival of security guards. The banner was a reference to the American Strategic Defence Initiative, “Star Wars”, testing for which had increased the heavy traffic of missiles of different levels at the Kwajalein range (dubbed by the empire as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site).

The scene was then being set for the tragedy as the vessel made its way 5000-kilometres to Auckland through friendly territory, calling in at Kiribati, the former Christmas Island base for British nuclear tests (1957-58), and Vanuatu, where the leader of the then five year-old Republic, Father Walter Lini, a champion for a nuclear free Pacific, organised a big public welcome.

THE STRIKE

Celebration fitted the mood of the “Warrior” crew a lot of the time, in this account; a group of eleven skilled and idealistic younger people, sharing a mission they considered important to the world, and enjoying it as an adventure. They wanted to protect nature and promote peace, never violent, but charismatic, given to direct action, often enough dangerous. They had 14 others on board — in the case of David Robie, for an extended time, 11 days, time enough to get to know the characters and introduce them to readers in his book.

A further leg of the voyage was intended, to take them to Mururoa Atoll – where France was continuing with underground nuclear testing – as flagship for a flotilla of protest boats. In the event, the flotilla sailed, led by another Greepenace ship, Greenpeace III. One boat was arrested penetrating the 12-kilometre territorial limit around the Atoll, where a series of tests was about to begin.

The planned disruption of activities on Mururoa may have been the death warrant for Rainbow Warrior — a solution to the riddle of what purposes its destruction was supposed to serve. As the ship made its way towards Auckland , two French infiltrators got to work in that City, penetrating the Greenpeace operation. A group of military divers from a training base in Corsica was en route to New Zealand on a charter boat and two officers of France’s security service, DGSE, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, flew in under cover as a honeymoon couple.

Rainbow Warrior came in on Sunday 7 July 1985, surrounded by an escort of small boats and was sunk at the dock in shallow water just before midnight on 10 July. Divers using an inflatable boat set off the two explosions. Prieur and Mafart were spotted picking up one of the divers on a beach by men doing night watch at their boat club, who got the number of their vehicle, enabling the police to apprehend them, and begin a tortured process to try and secure justice.

AFTERMATH

Updating of the book takes in the negotiations over holding Prieur and Mafart, their eventual transfer to France and subsequent early release; the fate of other conspirators spirited home, promoted, decorated, “looked after” in early retirement; intensive and large scale work by the New Zealand police to find out about the charter boat carrying some of the divers, said to have transferred them onto a submarine,  the Rubis; investigative work by the French press to sheet home responsibility for the attack.

Very soon after Rainbow Warrior was sunk, the Defence Minister, Charles Hernu, was sacked and the head of the DGSE Admiral Pierre Lacoste resigned. The book has a positive impression of the replacement Minister, Paul Quiles and the Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, who admitted the obvious, that it had been done by French agents, arranged financial support for the Pereira family and was apologetic. Subsequent negotiations between New Zealand and France, under United Nations auspices were made very difficult; a formal apology was avoided for some time; eventually both New Zealand and Greenpeace received financial packages in compensation and exemplary damages.

After the 1996 death of Francois Mitterrand, French President at the time, an investigation by Le Monde turned up circumstantial evidence that he knew of the attack in advance and a statement by Lacoste that he had approved it. Fabius evidently had not known. Mitterrand’s motive was said to have been realpolitik — to support nuclear deterrence against the Soviet Union in tandem with the USA, which supplied France with highly strategic computer technology.

Reviewer intercession...

Mitterrand, as a highly equivocal and manipulative politician, walked a tightrope, always watching his soft electoral margins — in this case knowing there was 60 per cent support for nuclear testing in France. In office for four years in 1985, it may have been a new Government still failing to face down entrenched security identities, undisciplined, considering themselves to be “deep state”, attached to violent solutions, with potential to go rogue.

Most of Robie’s work here is a narrative, a strong true story, but it has space for analysis, and in particular registers the correlation between devastation brought by the nuclear testing, and colonial management and manipulation of islands affairs. The post-War wave of independence had come to the Pacific, though not to French Polynesia nor New Caledonia. In addition, the United States still held its Micronesian dependencies in trust or, for Sovereign states, via signed compacts of free association, accompanied by substantial aid payments. France’s position against independence is incentivised by maintaining colonies of over 100,000 settlers; and in New Caledonia, the nickel deposits, around 15% of world resources, as well as the 200 kilometre territorial zone off the long coast of Grande Terre island, opening onto as yet unsurveyed undersea resources. For the Americans, the priority has been both weapons testing and maintaining a strategic barrier against Russia, then China.

OLD PROBLEMS, FUTURE CHALLENGES

These considerations help to address the always unanswered question of what the plotters thought they had to gain. The book suggests a clumsy and excessive attempt to stop the ship leading a flotilla to Mururoa Atoll as most likely. It goes on to identify same-old patterns of resistance in latter-day moves, successful, to get better recognition of the impacts of nuclear contamination and in the moves through international forums – such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, South Pacific Forum, United Nations agencies, the international courts – to get recognition and action on the impacts of climate change. Pacific communities mindful of the rising seas, and other problems like impacts on sea-life, have struggled to get a hearing, finding, again, that “great powers” outside the region which hold resources that can help hold off the crisis, hold back their response. Nuclear testing in the atmosphere was made to stop in 1974; tests underground on the atolls continued to 1996, leaving a very brief interregnum before global warming reared its head.

The current edition of Eyes of Fire has a prologue by Helen Clark, New Zealand Prime Minister from 1999-2008, a staunch keeper of the faith in a nuclear-free Pacific. Saying, 'storm clouds are gathering', she warns against renewed militarisation especially with Australia and perhaps other Pacific states acquiring nuclear submarines under the 2021 AUKUS agreement.

It is time for 'de-escalation, not for enthusiastic expansion of nuclear submarine fleets in the Pacific', writes Clark in her contribution to the new edition. With its peace policy, New Zealand wanted to be 'a force for diplomacy and for dialogue, not for warmongering'.

Clark warns withdrawal of funding from the United Nations, led by the USA, is a new threat: 'Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises.'

David Robie reports on the 40^th anniversary commemoration of the 1985 events by Greenpeace, sending the new purpose-built ship, the new Rainbow Warrior, sometimes known as Rainbow Warrior III, to carry out independent radiation research. He follows up the lives and careers of the crew members and the islanders they worked with, several of whom have passed away.

While the writer’s own message, as in much good journalism, emerges from true handling of the facts, Robie does privilege a quotation from the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa, Russel Norman, on the crew of Rainbow Warrior, to close the story:

“They faced down a nuclear threat to the habitability of the Pacific. Do we have the courage and wits to face down the biodiversity and climate crises facing humanity, crises that threaten the habitability of planet Earth?”

Note on the reviewer...

Dr Lee Duffield reported on Australia’s dispute with France over atmospheric testing for ABC News in Sydney and then from Paris as the ABC European Correspondent. His work entailed monitoring police actions against Kanak activists in New Caledonia, including the killings on Ouvea Island; confrontations with French Ministers over the test program; and negotiations between France and New Zealand, in Paris, on Rainbow Warrior, especially the gaoling then early release of Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart. He later taught Journalism at QUT in Brisbane and was a contributor to Pacific Journalism Review. Dr Duffield is also one of the owners of Independent Australia, and the chair of its Editorial Board.

]]>

Updated research has shown up lingering headaches over the impacts of decades-long nuclear testing in the Pacific islands and interventions of outside powers, amid growing threats from climate change, writes Dr Lee Duffield.

THE JOURNALIST, Professor and peace activist David Robie, was one of a media party on the ill-fated voyage of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in 1985, before its sinking by French security operatives in Auckland Harbour. He wrote a definitive book about the lead-up in the region to the fatal sinking of the ship with explosive mines; unmasking of the plot made in Paris; attempts to obtain justice and a long aftermath with demands for empowerment by former “colonial” people, to prevent such outrages in their island homelands.

The book is Eyes of Fire, published in 1986, then successively updated as the story unfolded, with new facts and consequences of the outrage coming to light. It ran to three revised editions, the last out now to commemorate 40 years since the attack took place. It therefore marked 40 years since the death of the Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, a Portuguese-born Dutch national, aged 35, father of one child, drowned on board after the second of two blasts that hit the ship.

Eyes of Fire is a highly professional work of journalism, built out of investigation and documentation of facts, then fashioned into an accessible read; illustrated also with easy-to-comprehend maps and diagrams, showing where the ship travelled and where the bombs were planted against its hull, plus photographs from a copious accumulation built up as the Greenpeace movement generated publicity for its actions worldwide.

VOYAGE OF THE WARRIOR

One section describes the Rainbow Warrior, appreciatively and affectionately: a former fisheries research vessel, a trawler type, 50-metres in length, with some difficulty converted for sail as well as power, made into a 'proud campaign ship', painted a strong green with a long rainbow-emblem along the sides.

'The wheelhouse was rather lumpy and unattractive but the rest of the ship was appealing. She had a high North Sea prow, graceful sheerline and round-the-corner stern.'

 

For the record...

The Rainbow Warrior sailed from Hawaii – taking on board seven journalists and some leading figures from the Pacific communities, to the Marshall Islands – where it evacuated the inhabitants of a nuclear afflicted island, Rongelap, to an uninhabited island Mejatto in its archipelago. Pacific distances are great. They transported 350 people – with lumber and belongings – in four trips, 250-kilometres there and back. The islanders were suffering from contamination by the infamous upwind explosion of the experimental thermonuclear weapon, Castle Bravo, in 1954 — causing thyroid disorders, cancers and constant miscarriages and birthing disorders. Dissatisfied that health officials sent by the United States administration were more interested in research than care, they decided to leave. The key instigator was Marshall Islands legislator Senator Jeton Anjain. He was one of two Pacific Islands leaders with prominent roles in Robie’s narrative.

The other was Oscar Temaru, a town mayor in Tahiti, also elected as the territory’s President on five occasions.

Temaru spoke for many when he said:

“The sad truth is that the only ones who tried to help us are the Greenpeace ecologists…”

A native American woman named Eyes of Fire had told a Greenpeace member about a legend, that where there was dispossession and despoilation of the land and culture, in time mythical warriors – deliverers – would come, who would mend and restore both. So the peace-ship offering aid would be a Rainbow Warrior.

The author, Robie, in his news despatches for Radio New Zealand, judged the evacuation project a change for Greenpeace towards humanitarian work connected with environmental destruction: 

“This isn’t a game or the sort of action publicity stunt that Greenpeace would do so successfully.”

But the next part of the journey was another dramatic action, in Marshall Islands, at the U.S. missile testing base on Kwajalein Atoll. A party from the ship went ashore, got through perimeter wires and hoisted a banner inscribed “Stop Star Wars” onto a space tracking dome, escaping before the arrival of security guards. The banner was a reference to the American Strategic Defence Initiative, “Star Wars”, testing for which had increased the heavy traffic of missiles of different levels at the Kwajalein range (dubbed by the empire as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site).

The scene was then being set for the tragedy as the vessel made its way 5000-kilometres to Auckland through friendly territory, calling in at Kiribati, the former Christmas Island base for British nuclear tests (1957-58), and Vanuatu, where the leader of the then five year-old Republic, Father Walter Lini, a champion for a nuclear free Pacific, organised a big public welcome.

THE STRIKE

Celebration fitted the mood of the “Warrior” crew a lot of the time, in this account; a group of eleven skilled and idealistic younger people, sharing a mission they considered important to the world, and enjoying it as an adventure. They wanted to protect nature and promote peace, never violent, but charismatic, given to direct action, often enough dangerous. They had 14 others on board — in the case of David Robie, for an extended time, 11 days, time enough to get to know the characters and introduce them to readers in his book.

A further leg of the voyage was intended, to take them to Mururoa Atoll – where France was continuing with underground nuclear testing – as flagship for a flotilla of protest boats. In the event, the flotilla sailed, led by another Greepenace ship, Greenpeace III. One boat was arrested penetrating the 12-kilometre territorial limit around the Atoll, where a series of tests was about to begin.

The planned disruption of activities on Mururoa may have been the death warrant for Rainbow Warrior — a solution to the riddle of what purposes its destruction was supposed to serve. As the ship made its way towards Auckland , two French infiltrators got to work in that City, penetrating the Greenpeace operation. A group of military divers from a training base in Corsica was en route to New Zealand on a charter boat and two officers of France’s security service, DGSE, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, flew in under cover as a honeymoon couple.

Rainbow Warrior came in on Sunday 7 July 1985, surrounded by an escort of small boats and was sunk at the dock in shallow water just before midnight on 10 July. Divers using an inflatable boat set off the two explosions. Prieur and Mafart were spotted picking up one of the divers on a beach by men doing night watch at their boat club, who got the number of their vehicle, enabling the police to apprehend them, and begin a tortured process to try and secure justice.

AFTERMATH

Updating of the book takes in the negotiations over holding Prieur and Mafart, their eventual transfer to France and subsequent early release; the fate of other conspirators spirited home, promoted, decorated, “looked after” in early retirement; intensive and large scale work by the New Zealand police to find out about the charter boat carrying some of the divers, said to have transferred them onto a submarine,  the Rubis; investigative work by the French press to sheet home responsibility for the attack.

Very soon after Rainbow Warrior was sunk, the Defence Minister, Charles Hernu, was sacked and the head of the DGSE Admiral Pierre Lacoste resigned. The book has a positive impression of the replacement Minister, Paul Quiles and the Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, who admitted the obvious, that it had been done by French agents, arranged financial support for the Pereira family and was apologetic. Subsequent negotiations between New Zealand and France, under United Nations auspices were made very difficult; a formal apology was avoided for some time; eventually both New Zealand and Greenpeace received financial packages in compensation and exemplary damages.

After the 1996 death of Francois Mitterrand, French President at the time, an investigation by Le Monde turned up circumstantial evidence that he knew of the attack in advance and a statement by Lacoste that he had approved it. Fabius evidently had not known. Mitterrand’s motive was said to have been realpolitik — to support nuclear deterrence against the Soviet Union in tandem with the USA, which supplied France with highly strategic computer technology.

Reviewer intercession...

Mitterrand, as a highly equivocal and manipulative politician, walked a tightrope, always watching his soft electoral margins — in this case knowing there was 60 per cent support for nuclear testing in France. In office for four years in 1985, it may have been a new Government still failing to face down entrenched security identities, undisciplined, considering themselves to be “deep state”, attached to violent solutions, with potential to go rogue.

Most of Robie’s work here is a narrative, a strong true story, but it has space for analysis, and in particular registers the correlation between devastation brought by the nuclear testing, and colonial management and manipulation of islands affairs. The post-War wave of independence had come to the Pacific, though not to French Polynesia nor New Caledonia. In addition, the United States still held its Micronesian dependencies in trust or, for Sovereign states, via signed compacts of free association, accompanied by substantial aid payments. France’s position against independence is incentivised by maintaining colonies of over 100,000 settlers; and in New Caledonia, the nickel deposits, around 15% of world resources, as well as the 200 kilometre territorial zone off the long coast of Grande Terre island, opening onto as yet unsurveyed undersea resources. For the Americans, the priority has been both weapons testing and maintaining a strategic barrier against Russia, then China.

OLD PROBLEMS, FUTURE CHALLENGES

These considerations help to address the always unanswered question of what the plotters thought they had to gain. The book suggests a clumsy and excessive attempt to stop the ship leading a flotilla to Mururoa Atoll as most likely. It goes on to identify same-old patterns of resistance in latter-day moves, successful, to get better recognition of the impacts of nuclear contamination and in the moves through international forums – such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, South Pacific Forum, United Nations agencies, the international courts – to get recognition and action on the impacts of climate change. Pacific communities mindful of the rising seas, and other problems like impacts on sea-life, have struggled to get a hearing, finding, again, that “great powers” outside the region which hold resources that can help hold off the crisis, hold back their response. Nuclear testing in the atmosphere was made to stop in 1974; tests underground on the atolls continued to 1996, leaving a very brief interregnum before global warming reared its head.

The current edition of Eyes of Fire has a prologue by Helen Clark, New Zealand Prime Minister from 1999-2008, a staunch keeper of the faith in a nuclear-free Pacific. Saying, 'storm clouds are gathering', she warns against renewed militarisation especially with Australia and perhaps other Pacific states acquiring nuclear submarines under the 2021 AUKUS agreement.

It is time for 'de-escalation, not for enthusiastic expansion of nuclear submarine fleets in the Pacific', writes Clark in her contribution to the new edition. With its peace policy, New Zealand wanted to be 'a force for diplomacy and for dialogue, not for warmongering'.

Clark warns withdrawal of funding from the United Nations, led by the USA, is a new threat: 'Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises.'

David Robie reports on the 40^th anniversary commemoration of the 1985 events by Greenpeace, sending the new purpose-built ship, the new Rainbow Warrior, sometimes known as Rainbow Warrior III, to carry out independent radiation research. He follows up the lives and careers of the crew members and the islanders they worked with, several of whom have passed away.

While the writer’s own message, as in much good journalism, emerges from true handling of the facts, Robie does privilege a quotation from the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa, Russel Norman, on the crew of Rainbow Warrior, to close the story:

“They faced down a nuclear threat to the habitability of the Pacific. Do we have the courage and wits to face down the biodiversity and climate crises facing humanity, crises that threaten the habitability of planet Earth?”

Note on the reviewer...

Dr Lee Duffield reported on Australia’s dispute with France over atmospheric testing for ABC News in Sydney and then from Paris as the ABC European Correspondent. His work entailed monitoring police actions against Kanak activists in New Caledonia, including the killings on Ouvea Island; confrontations with French Ministers over the test program; and negotiations between France and New Zealand, in Paris, on Rainbow Warrior, especially the gaoling then early release of Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart. He later taught Journalism at QUT in Brisbane and was a contributor to Pacific Journalism Review. Dr Duffield is also one of the owners of Independent Australia, and the chair of its Editorial Board.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/whos-making-money-the-arsenal-trade-after-ukraine-and-iran,20929?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/whos-making-money-the-arsenal-trade-after-ukraine-and-iran,20929?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Defence is no longer a defensive trade, and nowhere is the question of who's buying, who's building, and who is being left behind more apparent than in Australia, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

Markets, missiles and the end of the peace dividend — and what it means for Australia

A South Korean missile-maker most Western investors could not have located on a map two years ago has just hit an all-time high. LIG Nex1, a precision-guided munitions and electronic warfare specialist headquartered in Yongin, has nearly quadrupled from its January 2025 base, touching 899,000 won on 6 March 2026 — days after American and Israeli aircraft struck Iranian nuclear and missile facilities.

The Korean defence sector as a whole has returned roughly 137 per cent over the past year. These are not the numbers of a sleepy industrial cyclical. They are the numbers of an asset class being repriced in real time.

Defence is no longer a defensive trade. It is the trade. And nowhere is the question of who is buying, who is building, and who is being left in the queue more pointed than in Australia.

Canberra in the queue

For Australia, the arsenal trade is not an abstract market story. It is a mirror.

AUKUS is now a procurement queue rather than a strategy and the cost of waiting for Virginia-class submarines while the Indo-Pacific darkens is becoming uncomfortable to discuss in polite company.

Canberra is, in effect, paying premium prices for late delivery, while Korean and Japanese yards offer shorter timelines at lower cost.

Hanwha's confirmed 19.9 per cent strategic stake in Austal, cleared by both the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Canberra's Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) by late 2025, the Henderson shipyards build-up (now known as the Australian Marine Complex), the AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer program being built by Hanwha at Avalon, near Geelong are not coincidences. They are the early signs of an Australian defence industrial base quietly rotating away from Anglosphere dependence and towards Asian arsenals that can actually deliver.

The strain is visible in real time. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported last week, Canberra's first crisis call during the Middle East escalation went to Beijing rather than Washington — a reflex inversion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago and that tells you more about the perceived reliability of the American guarantee than any AUKUS communiqué.

The ASX has noticed even if the cabinet has not: DroneShield, Electro Optic Systems, Codan and Austal have all attracted the kind of investor attention that only arrives when a market decides a sector's tail risks have permanently thickened.

From cost centre to industrial darling

The Ukraine War did the structural work. It converted defence from a politically awkward line item into the most fashionable corner of industrial policy and it taught Western treasuries an uncomfortable lesson about how thin their magazines actually were. Three years of artillery duels in the Donbas drained stockpiles NATO had quietly assumed would last a generation.

The Middle East conflict is the second shock. Patriot interceptors, Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) reloads, Iron Dome Tamirs, SM-3s, 155mm shells, loitering munitions — each salvo over the Gulf is, in accounting terms, a revenue recognition event somewhere in Arizona, Alabama, Haifa or Daejeon. Governments that spent the 2010s running down inventories on the assumption of a benign world are now writing cheques to rebuild them, and they are writing those cheques into the same handful of balance sheets.

Who, specifically, is making money

Four tiers are visible.

First, the American primes — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, L3Harris. They capture the replenishment contracts, the integration work, and the multi-year framework agreements that Congress now waves through with rare bipartisan enthusiasm. Their backlogs are at record highs and, after two decades of monopsony complaints, their pricing power has quietly inverted.

Second, the European awakening — Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Saab AB, Thales. Germany's Zeitenwende turned out to be real, and Rheinmetall in particular has become the continent's de facto shell foundry, trading less like an industrial stock and more like a leveraged proxy on NATO's Article 5 itself.

Third, and most interesting from where Australia sits, the Asian arsenals — Hanwha Aerospace, Korea Aerospace Industries, Hanwha Systems and the LIG Nex1 of the opening paragraph, alongside Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki in Japan. South Korea has done what Europe spent 30 years failing to do: build a deep, exportable, price-competitive defence industrial base with delivery times measured in months rather than decades.

Warsaw noticed first. Riyadh, Canberra and Cairo are noticing now. Israel's own Elbit, Rafael and IAI sit alongside them as the technological pace-setters, particularly in air defence and electronic warfare, where the Iran exchange has been a brutal but effective live-fire showcase.

Fourth, the invisible compounders — the propellant chemists, the rare-earth magnet refiners, the speciality steel mills, the gallium nitride foundries, the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) cleared software shops, the maritime insurers writing war-risk cover on Hormuz transits at multiples of last year's premium. This is where the quiet fortunes are being made. Lynas Rare Earths, sitting on one of the few non-Chinese heavy rare earth supply chains in existence, belongs in this tier, whether the market has fully priced it in or not.

The Gulf parallel

For the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the calculation is different and more cynical than Australia's, but the underlying logic is the same. Every Gulf capital is simultaneously a customer, a forward operating base, and a potential target. Sovereign wealth is rotating accordingly — not away from defence, but into it. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is building domestic primes such as the Synchronised Accessible Media Exchange (SAMI) — wholly owned by the Public Investment Fund and openly targeting a place in the global top 25 defence companies by 2030.

The export of security capacity has become a new instrument of influence and the capital flows track the doctrine more faithfully than any white paper. Australia, with its Henderson precinct ambitions and its Hanwha partnership, is on a milder version of the same curve.

The uncomfortable coda

None of this is a celebration. A rising LIG Nex1 share price is, in the end, a market-implied judgement that more young people in more places will be killed by better-engineered weapons. The honest analyst names that trade-off rather than hiding behind the chart.

But the honest analyst also tells the truth about incentives. The Ukraine War did not enrich defence contractors by accident and the Iran strikes will not either. Governments that spent a generation treating deterrence as a sunk cost are now paying the bill they should have been paying all along and the firms holding the order books are, predictably, getting rich.

CNN reported over the weekend that U.S. intelligence believes China is preparing to deliver shoulder-fired air defence missiles (MANPADS) to Iran during the current ceasefire — a claim Beijing has formally denied. If the reporting holds, that single fact reframes the arsenal trade as an explicit great-power contest rather than a Western replenishment cycle — and it makes every defence ministry from Canberra to Riyadh recalculate how long it can afford to wait in the AUKUS queue.

For Australia, the question is sharper than for most. Canberra can keep waiting for Virginia-class boats and hoping the phone in Washington still gets answered, or it can do what Warsaw and Riyadh have already done — back the arsenals that can actually deliver, and accept that strategic autonomy in 2026 looks less like an alliance white paper and more like a procurement contract with Daejeon, Tokyo, Henderson or Geelong.

The post-Cold War peace dividend has been spent. What replaces it is already listed, already trading and already on the front page. The only open question is whether Australia is reading the same page as the rest of the market.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]>

Defence is no longer a defensive trade, and nowhere is the question of who's buying, who's building, and who is being left behind more apparent than in Australia, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

Markets, missiles and the end of the peace dividend — and what it means for Australia

A South Korean missile-maker most Western investors could not have located on a map two years ago has just hit an all-time high. LIG Nex1, a precision-guided munitions and electronic warfare specialist headquartered in Yongin, has nearly quadrupled from its January 2025 base, touching 899,000 won on 6 March 2026 — days after American and Israeli aircraft struck Iranian nuclear and missile facilities.

The Korean defence sector as a whole has returned roughly 137 per cent over the past year. These are not the numbers of a sleepy industrial cyclical. They are the numbers of an asset class being repriced in real time.

Defence is no longer a defensive trade. It is the trade. And nowhere is the question of who is buying, who is building, and who is being left in the queue more pointed than in Australia.

Canberra in the queue

For Australia, the arsenal trade is not an abstract market story. It is a mirror.

AUKUS is now a procurement queue rather than a strategy and the cost of waiting for Virginia-class submarines while the Indo-Pacific darkens is becoming uncomfortable to discuss in polite company.

Canberra is, in effect, paying premium prices for late delivery, while Korean and Japanese yards offer shorter timelines at lower cost.

Hanwha's confirmed 19.9 per cent strategic stake in Austal, cleared by both the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Canberra's Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) by late 2025, the Henderson shipyards build-up (now known as the Australian Marine Complex), the AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer program being built by Hanwha at Avalon, near Geelong are not coincidences. They are the early signs of an Australian defence industrial base quietly rotating away from Anglosphere dependence and towards Asian arsenals that can actually deliver.

The strain is visible in real time. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported last week, Canberra's first crisis call during the Middle East escalation went to Beijing rather than Washington — a reflex inversion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago and that tells you more about the perceived reliability of the American guarantee than any AUKUS communiqué.

The ASX has noticed even if the cabinet has not: DroneShield, Electro Optic Systems, Codan and Austal have all attracted the kind of investor attention that only arrives when a market decides a sector's tail risks have permanently thickened.

From cost centre to industrial darling

The Ukraine War did the structural work. It converted defence from a politically awkward line item into the most fashionable corner of industrial policy and it taught Western treasuries an uncomfortable lesson about how thin their magazines actually were. Three years of artillery duels in the Donbas drained stockpiles NATO had quietly assumed would last a generation.

The Middle East conflict is the second shock. Patriot interceptors, Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) reloads, Iron Dome Tamirs, SM-3s, 155mm shells, loitering munitions — each salvo over the Gulf is, in accounting terms, a revenue recognition event somewhere in Arizona, Alabama, Haifa or Daejeon. Governments that spent the 2010s running down inventories on the assumption of a benign world are now writing cheques to rebuild them, and they are writing those cheques into the same handful of balance sheets.

Who, specifically, is making money

Four tiers are visible.

First, the American primes — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, L3Harris. They capture the replenishment contracts, the integration work, and the multi-year framework agreements that Congress now waves through with rare bipartisan enthusiasm. Their backlogs are at record highs and, after two decades of monopsony complaints, their pricing power has quietly inverted.

Second, the European awakening — Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Saab AB, Thales. Germany's Zeitenwende turned out to be real, and Rheinmetall in particular has become the continent's de facto shell foundry, trading less like an industrial stock and more like a leveraged proxy on NATO's Article 5 itself.

Third, and most interesting from where Australia sits, the Asian arsenals — Hanwha Aerospace, Korea Aerospace Industries, Hanwha Systems and the LIG Nex1 of the opening paragraph, alongside Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki in Japan. South Korea has done what Europe spent 30 years failing to do: build a deep, exportable, price-competitive defence industrial base with delivery times measured in months rather than decades.

Warsaw noticed first. Riyadh, Canberra and Cairo are noticing now. Israel's own Elbit, Rafael and IAI sit alongside them as the technological pace-setters, particularly in air defence and electronic warfare, where the Iran exchange has been a brutal but effective live-fire showcase.

Fourth, the invisible compounders — the propellant chemists, the rare-earth magnet refiners, the speciality steel mills, the gallium nitride foundries, the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) cleared software shops, the maritime insurers writing war-risk cover on Hormuz transits at multiples of last year's premium. This is where the quiet fortunes are being made. Lynas Rare Earths, sitting on one of the few non-Chinese heavy rare earth supply chains in existence, belongs in this tier, whether the market has fully priced it in or not.

The Gulf parallel

For the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the calculation is different and more cynical than Australia's, but the underlying logic is the same. Every Gulf capital is simultaneously a customer, a forward operating base, and a potential target. Sovereign wealth is rotating accordingly — not away from defence, but into it. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is building domestic primes such as the Synchronised Accessible Media Exchange (SAMI) — wholly owned by the Public Investment Fund and openly targeting a place in the global top 25 defence companies by 2030.

The export of security capacity has become a new instrument of influence and the capital flows track the doctrine more faithfully than any white paper. Australia, with its Henderson precinct ambitions and its Hanwha partnership, is on a milder version of the same curve.

The uncomfortable coda

None of this is a celebration. A rising LIG Nex1 share price is, in the end, a market-implied judgement that more young people in more places will be killed by better-engineered weapons. The honest analyst names that trade-off rather than hiding behind the chart.

But the honest analyst also tells the truth about incentives. The Ukraine War did not enrich defence contractors by accident and the Iran strikes will not either. Governments that spent a generation treating deterrence as a sunk cost are now paying the bill they should have been paying all along and the firms holding the order books are, predictably, getting rich.

CNN reported over the weekend that U.S. intelligence believes China is preparing to deliver shoulder-fired air defence missiles (MANPADS) to Iran during the current ceasefire — a claim Beijing has formally denied. If the reporting holds, that single fact reframes the arsenal trade as an explicit great-power contest rather than a Western replenishment cycle — and it makes every defence ministry from Canberra to Riyadh recalculate how long it can afford to wait in the AUKUS queue.

For Australia, the question is sharper than for most. Canberra can keep waiting for Virginia-class boats and hoping the phone in Washington still gets answered, or it can do what Warsaw and Riyadh have already done — back the arsenals that can actually deliver, and accept that strategic autonomy in 2026 looks less like an alliance white paper and more like a procurement contract with Daejeon, Tokyo, Henderson or Geelong.

The post-Cold War peace dividend has been spent. What replaces it is already listed, already trading and already on the front page. The only open question is whether Australia is reading the same page as the rest of the market.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/albanese-gambling-reform,20927?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/albanese-gambling-reform,20927?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Anthony Albanese has quietly unveiled some of the biggest gambling reforms Australia has ever seen — but are they enough? Emma Goldrick comments.

For many Australians, sport is intrinsically woven into the fabric of our national identity. Yet in a country that records the highest per-capita gambling losses in the world, sporting culture and having a punt have, for many, become synonymous.

Announced in the latter stages of Anthony Albanese's 2 April 2026 address to the National Press Club – and largely lost in media coverage as it has been overshadowed by escalating global conflict – the Prime Minister unveiled plans for what he described as the “most significant reform on gambling” Australia has ever seen.

While these reforms are significant in marking the first major regulation of a largely unregulated landscape, many are questioning whether the proposed measures will go far enough to address rising rates of sports gambling across the country and generations of serial sporting gamblers. The partial gambling advertising ban comes as the Government attempts to balance the recommendations of the 2023 Murphy Report with the economic realities of Australia’s media and sporting industries.

Under the proposed framework, gambling advertisements on free-to-air television will be capped at three ads per hour between 6:00 am and 8:30 pm, with a complete ban during live sporting broadcasts within those hours. In an effort to specifically limit exposure to younger generations, radio advertising will also face restrictions, including a ban during school drop-off and pick-up periods, from 8:00 am to 9:00 am, and from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm.

Perhaps the most visible shift will be in Australian sport itself. Gambling branding will be removed from stadiums and player uniforms, while influencer endorsements and appearances by athletes in betting promotions will be prohibited. For many Australians, this signals a major cultural shift in the relationship between sport and wagering — as overt sportbetting branding on uniforms and stadiums has increased substantially with the rise of online betting platforms' popularity.

Online advertising will also be tightened, with betting companies only permitted to advertise to users who are logged in and verified as over 18. As part of what has been described as a "triple-lock" system, users will also be given the ability to opt out of receiving gambling promotions — although the specifics of how this will work in practice are yet to be outlined.

The announcement has sparked criticism from public health advocates and crossbench politicians, who argue the reforms do not go far enough. Independent Senator David Pocock, who has been a long-term advocate for gambling reform, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Government’s proposal, arguing the measures fall well short of what is required to meaningfully reduce gambling harm. Pocock has pointed to the Murphy Review’s recommendation for a phased total ban on online gambling advertising, warning that anything less risks preserving the culture of gambling amongst Australians.

Notably, the political challenge lies in how deeply embedded gambling revenue has become within Australia’s sporting ecosystem. For years, betting companies have evolved from peripheral advertisers into major commercial partners of sporting codes, broadcasters and clubs. Sponsorship deals, in-stadium branding, broadcast advertising slots and digital integrations now form substantial revenue streams for organisations such as the AFL and NRL, as well as the networks that hold their media rights.

This financial interdependence has created a system in which sport, media and betting interests are increasingly difficult to disentangle. Any serious reform, therefore, is not simply a matter of restricting advertisements, but of confronting a funding model that has, over time, normalised betting as an almost inseparable part of the sporting experience.

Emma Goldrick works in policy communications and as a freelance writer. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications much of which pertains to environmental politics and government discourse.

]]>

Anthony Albanese has quietly unveiled some of the biggest gambling reforms Australia has ever seen — but are they enough? Emma Goldrick comments.

For many Australians, sport is intrinsically woven into the fabric of our national identity. Yet in a country that records the highest per-capita gambling losses in the world, sporting culture and having a punt have, for many, become synonymous.

Announced in the latter stages of Anthony Albanese's 2 April 2026 address to the National Press Club – and largely lost in media coverage as it has been overshadowed by escalating global conflict – the Prime Minister unveiled plans for what he described as the “most significant reform on gambling” Australia has ever seen.

While these reforms are significant in marking the first major regulation of a largely unregulated landscape, many are questioning whether the proposed measures will go far enough to address rising rates of sports gambling across the country and generations of serial sporting gamblers. The partial gambling advertising ban comes as the Government attempts to balance the recommendations of the 2023 Murphy Report with the economic realities of Australia’s media and sporting industries.

Under the proposed framework, gambling advertisements on free-to-air television will be capped at three ads per hour between 6:00 am and 8:30 pm, with a complete ban during live sporting broadcasts within those hours. In an effort to specifically limit exposure to younger generations, radio advertising will also face restrictions, including a ban during school drop-off and pick-up periods, from 8:00 am to 9:00 am, and from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm.

Perhaps the most visible shift will be in Australian sport itself. Gambling branding will be removed from stadiums and player uniforms, while influencer endorsements and appearances by athletes in betting promotions will be prohibited. For many Australians, this signals a major cultural shift in the relationship between sport and wagering — as overt sportbetting branding on uniforms and stadiums has increased substantially with the rise of online betting platforms' popularity.

Online advertising will also be tightened, with betting companies only permitted to advertise to users who are logged in and verified as over 18. As part of what has been described as a "triple-lock" system, users will also be given the ability to opt out of receiving gambling promotions — although the specifics of how this will work in practice are yet to be outlined.

The announcement has sparked criticism from public health advocates and crossbench politicians, who argue the reforms do not go far enough. Independent Senator David Pocock, who has been a long-term advocate for gambling reform, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Government’s proposal, arguing the measures fall well short of what is required to meaningfully reduce gambling harm. Pocock has pointed to the Murphy Review’s recommendation for a phased total ban on online gambling advertising, warning that anything less risks preserving the culture of gambling amongst Australians.

Notably, the political challenge lies in how deeply embedded gambling revenue has become within Australia’s sporting ecosystem. For years, betting companies have evolved from peripheral advertisers into major commercial partners of sporting codes, broadcasters and clubs. Sponsorship deals, in-stadium branding, broadcast advertising slots and digital integrations now form substantial revenue streams for organisations such as the AFL and NRL, as well as the networks that hold their media rights.

This financial interdependence has created a system in which sport, media and betting interests are increasingly difficult to disentangle. Any serious reform, therefore, is not simply a matter of restricting advertisements, but of confronting a funding model that has, over time, normalised betting as an almost inseparable part of the sporting experience.

Emma Goldrick works in policy communications and as a freelance writer. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications much of which pertains to environmental politics and government discourse.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/australias-000-failures-why-your-phone-may-fail-to-call-triple-zero,20923?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/australias-000-failures-why-your-phone-may-fail-to-call-triple-zero,20923?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The regulatory and industry failures behind Australia’s Triple Zero outages were not only foreseen, they are entirely rectifiable, writes James Parker.

AUSTRALIA'S telecommunications sector and public confidence in Triple Zero are at a crisis point.

Multiple emergency call failures late last year have shaken public confidence in a service that’s used by millions and essential for saving lives. These failures are a symptom of broader problems in the sector, including how emergency calling has been designed and implemented on 4G.

The idea that you can just pick up your phone and reliably access emergency services in Australia is no longer guaranteed, as it had been for decades prior with 2G and 3G.

Australia’s premature 2024 3G Network shutdown is a key reason as to why. Now a "canary in the coal mine" for Europe and the rest of the world, yet to fully transition.

In fact, Australia’s 3G shutdown has now gone so badly, with consumers impacted by phone compatibility issues and lives lost, that Europeans are now calling for further shutdown delays.

Australia is the blueprint of exactly what not to do.

Without 3G networks, attempted 000 calls from "software incompatible" 4G devices are now entirely invisible to carriers.

The 18 September 2025 Optus failure

What should have been a routine Optus firewall upgrade, started in the early hours of 18 September 2025, would eventually result in hundreds of failed calls to Triple Zero across several states.

Optus, once again in the spotlight for another failure, this time fatal.

A company surrounded by back-to-back controversies from a 2022 data breach, a 2023 national outage and in 2025 being found to have engaged in unconscionable sales conduct in the Federal Court.

Once again hauled before a Senate Inquiry, Optus is adamant they are addressing the issues, with CEO Stephen Rue under pressure to reform a company that can’t seem to get the basics right.

Dr Kerry Schott AO’s subsequent report and testimony to the Triple Zero Inquiry described the culture of carelessness within Optus. Procedures ignored, processes not followed.

But these issues aren’t exclusive to Optus, though they are particularly acute.

But when a sector as critical as telecommunications is given "light touch" regulation with minimal oversight by authorities, it’s no wonder that such failures occur.

The telecommunications sector is now the second most distrusted in the country and Optus Australia’s most distrusted telco brand.

The "Wentworth Falls Incident"

A week later, on 24 September 2025, there was a failed call to Triple Zero, but this time on the TPG/Vodafone network. A call failure that would later be confirmed to involve a death.

This was technically separate in nature from the week earlier Optus failure, but interconnected to broader failures in the sector, including its regulation.

However, the public wouldn’t find out about this incident, nor the death, until 9 December 2025 — more than two months later — when the industry, brought before a Senate Inquiry, would finally make it public.

The industry was perhaps keen to "get its story straight" prior to the hearing, as commented by Committee Chair Senator Hanson-Young, who described it as a "cover-up".

The cause was not directly a network failure but a device software issue.

The device at the centre of the incident? A Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro. A device that is technically "hardware compatible" but software incompatible.

It was an older 2018 device lacking a critical software update — an update is only required for the Vodafone prepaid version of the phone (‘VAP’ CSC). It is still able to place normal calls, but without that update installed, this device is unable to call 000 on 4G, but only on the Vodafone network, which is instead reliant on 3G for 000.

Though "unlocked retail" and other telco variants are entirely unaffected by the issue and do not even need the update.

The 3G "Circuit Switched Fallback" calling, which previously provided universal compatibility across devices and networks ... no longer exists in Australia.

The warnings that this would happen

To most people, the idea that a device needs a software update to work for an emergency call is a completely foreign concept.

Such a requirement is entirely unprecedented in decades past with 2G and 3G.

However, the Federal Government, regulators and industry were repeatedly warned that something like this would happen post-shutdown.

Such warnings exist even in the Witness Hansard record from the 2024 3G Shutdown Senate Inquiry, in addition to other correspondence and submissions from the public and technical experts.

These warnings were not heeded or correctly acted upon.

Changes to the ‘Emergency Call Service Determination’

What was the "fix" for this?

A ministerial device blocking instrument was introduced mere days before the 3G shutdown to brick all phones the carriers have determined are "incompatible" with Triple Zero on 4G.

Though arguably justified from a public safety perspective, the directive was clearly not fit for purpose and plagued with issues of potential conflict of interest and consumer harm, with no recourse for consumers should the carriers get it wrong.

The carriers were ultimately left to be the sole arbiters of what is allowed and what isn’t.

These same blocking rules currently see many new 4G and 5G phones blocked by some or all of the providers, including many phones used by tourists.

The carriers have conflicting ideas about what works.

Blocking of devices

Since the 3G shutdown, the telcos have essentially only blocked based on make and model (the TAC), not per individual device (unique IMEI).

This same approach allows "hardware compatible" devices to connect even if the software is unable to call Triple Zero. The telcos do this because it’s both cheaper and easier to only block based on make and model (TAC), rather than per device.

FOI Documents show TPG was aware that the device software of the Samsung J2 Pro (belonging to an 84-year-old customer) hadn’t been updated. Customers were instead subjected to reminders and warnings to update their software. 

The second death

Only after the September 2025 incidents did TPG move to individually (IMEI) block incompatible devices that required a software update.

However, such a move was carried out too late as another death due to a Samsung device issue would occur on 13 November 2025, once again on the Vodafone network.

This second incident was the first to be publicly reported, with the original 24 September death still entirely unknown to the public.

Awareness of these incidents was perhaps only brought to public attention as a result of heightened concerns after the Optus failure.

Prior to this, in May 2025, TPG told the regulator that blocking individual devices (IMEIs) was "resource intensive" and not operationally feasible. Yet, TPG subsequently did just that after the deaths occurred.

Invisible emergency call failures

Without 3G networks, attempted 000 calls from "software incompatible" 4G devices are now entirely invisible to carriers.

The 3G "Circuit Switched Fallback" calling, which previously provided universal compatibility across devices and networks for calls and emergency calls, no longer exists in Australia, and without it, there is no safety net to catch 4G (VoLTE) call failures.

This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the shutdown.

No different to a phone being suddenly out of signal range, emergency calls go nowhere and desperate calls for help are now unanswered.

Questions remain as to how many others have experienced the same issue, with the world entirely unaware of their trouble or their fate. There is little doubt this likely occurred before September 2025 and probably will again, if it hasn’t already.

The industry has no real-time visibility as to whether your phone can actually call Triple Zero, and is instead broadly over-reliant on "compliance documents", historical call records and crude software version data for device models to determine 4G (VoLTE) compatibility.

More troubling still, many devices that are capable (including on all networks) can sometimes take 60–90 seconds to connect, many often looking for 3G, then 2G, then 4G.

An ABC 7.30 report in October also highlighted some of these issues. This is now the new normal in a "post-3G shutdown" Australia.

 

The rapid blocking of Samsung devices

Following on from the 24 September incident, Telstra carried out some testing with a Samsung-supplied Galaxy J2 Pro — though it appears not enough.

In the following weeks, telcos rapidly blocked tens of thousands of Samsung devices across many models sold between 2015 and 2021, though not all equally.

Many devices were genuinely impacted (especially when used on Vodafone), but others were entirely unaffected by the issue. This occurred even without the critical update installed.

They were lumped in with the "incompatible" models because it’s both easier and cheaper to block a device – and sell someone a new one – rather than properly test anything, let alone roll out an update to fix those with a genuine problem.

Optus also, in its rush to address the issue, incorrectly told thousands of customers with Samsung devices they needed Android 13 or higher, when that was entirely incorrect. This mistake was only corrected weeks later, on 18 November, likely after it was raised with Optus by government officials acting on consumer complaints.

Those required an update only needed the latest available, as advised by both Telstra and Samsung.

Telstra advised: 'Devices that are running the most up-to-date software version available already have the fix installed on their device'.

Vodafone and Optus would also block some brand new 5G devices from other brands in the ensuing weeks, including many "whitelisted" as compatible by Telstra.

In the case of Vodafone, in early December, after the Senate hearing, it panic-blocked all "unknown" capability devices from their network, including recently purchased 2025-model 5G phones.

That’s on top of the various "non-phone" devices blocked by Optus, such as vehicle asset trackers, smartwatches, and IoT devices.

The same devices not blocked by Telstra:

...There are no detailed explanations as to why a device is blocked or not. The carriers are not even required to provide proof of incompatibility, let alone any public lists.

The failures with Samsung devices

Samsung, also called before the Senate Inquiry, was keen to distance itself from the problem and technical failings with its devices — failings now connected to at least two deaths.

It denied that a software update could have possibly broken anything, despite some extensive user testing and firmware analysis showing that this was true for many of its devices — especially Telstra, Optus or retail models originally sold with Android 7 or 8.

Samsung’s completely proprietary 4G calling software and network profile system for their devices, different to every other Android brand, was clearly plagued with technical failures and design flaws.

The inconvenient reality for Samsung is that changes in its device software (and specifically for the Australian market) in its (2019) Android 9 software release introduced a new line of code that "refreshes" the emergency settings ("network profile") in use by the device when connecting to a network for Triple Zero.

A change likely introduced to improve the functionality of devices contained a critical flaw if a device lacks settings for all AU networks.

Telstra, Optus and retail sold Samsung devices that worked before on Vodafone for 000 with Android 8 Samsung software, but which were now broken when updated to Android 9. These devices, like the Galaxy J5 Pro or even the Galaxy Note 8, were now unable to call 000 on Vodafone with 4G.

The phones are now looking for network settings that don’t exist on the device — the "forced refresh" clearing any pre-selected settings that would have otherwise worked.

If a device is missing the Vodafone emergency network settings and the phone is connected to the TPG/Vodafone network, the 000 call will fail. A very obvious flaw, though predominantly an issue for Vodafone customers.

The crucial "fix" for these Samsung devices is a 1.3 Kilobyte Text file in the Firmware, which contains Vodafone’s 4G 000 network settings. This is a file not consistently rolled out to all devices, despite Samsung being entirely capable of doing so.

The 4G emergency calling function was also only enabled on the Vodafone network in 2021, while Optus and Telstra have supported the function on Samsung devices since at least 2017.

Interestingly, the exact same Samsung devices not running Australian market Firmware are not impacted by the issue, instead using the 000 network settings of whatever carrier SIM card is installed. These devices are entirely unaffected if used solely with Telstra or Optus SIMs, as opposed to their "in case of no SIM or AU sales code" function for the Australian Market.

Yet many of these devices have been caught up in the blocking, are Samsung calling phones it manufactured itself and sold on "the grey market".

This is despite consumers being previously told their device (including overseas variants) was okay, including prior to the shutdown in 2024, with the Official AMTA 3G Shutdown Checker.

Samsung and the telcos are not legally required under emergency calling regulations to recall incompatible devices and supply "like-for-like" free replacements.

Telstra’s report on the issue

Compounding this further, Telstra’s report on the problem to the Federal Government and ACMA, in October, is also actually incorrect in some of the specifics, including the nature and scale of the problem.

This asserts ‘all pre-November 2021 Samsung models’ are impacted and, without an update, are unable to call 000 on Vodafone with 4G.

It also states that the forced device behaviour 'ignores/overrides all Carrier and SIM card settings', which is entirely incorrect and is provably wrong.

A clear sign that Telstra hasn’t properly tested the phones, which it sold, including the Galaxy J2 Pro, which doesn’t even require the update.

Others sold with Android 7 or 8 are also not affected if they were sold by Telstra or Optus (with those carriers' respective software installed), including the S6 and S7, which have now been blocked.

Those devices are entirely capable of calling Triple Zero on Vodafone by using Telstra or Optus emergency profile settings.

Non-existent transparency

But with all of this, there are no detailed explanations as to why a device is blocked or not. The carriers are not even required to provide proof of incompatibility, let alone any public lists.

The only available public list and dataset available for consumers is not created by the regulator or industry, but instead by this author, and may be viewed HERE.

Tabled Senate Inquiry documents show Australian telcos were absolutely aware of device compatibility issues prior to the first 3G shutdown.

‘Just buy a new one’

In our modern culture of device disposability, unrepairability and corporate (and regulatory) indifference, it’s no wonder the "just buy a new one" mentality has been used as the only solution.

Anything other than that is put in the too-hard-basket – including by those that should be on the hook to fix this problem – or made to be someone else’s problem to solve.

Samsung and the telcos are not legally required under emergency calling regulations to recall incompatible devices and supply "like-for-like" free replacements, with any such offer of free devices or discounts solely an act of "goodwill".

The costs for these failings are instead borne by consumers and not the industry that allowed all of this to happen in the first place.

Another round of privatised gains and socialised losses.

Telco awareness of the 4G emergency calling issues

Back in 2022, telecoms policy expert Rudolf van der Berg made a presentation to a European Emergency Calling forum, raising the alarm about the issues with emergency calling on 4G and the safety impacts of 2G/3G shutdowns. He called on regulators and governments to stop the shutdowns until the technical issues were resolved.

Van der Berg said these issues are "common knowledge" in the industry and that "...there is nobody who feels responsible to fix this".

Tabled Senate Inquiry documents show Australian telcos were absolutely aware of device compatibility issues prior to the first 3G shutdown.

The carriers jointly briefed regulator ACMA about the problem of 4G (VoLTE-capable) devices that are unable to call Triple Zero on 4G, on 8 December 2023 — seven days before TPG/Vodafone would start their 3G shutdown.

However, curiously, months earlier in late July/August 2023, Vodafone quietly removed devices from their official VoLTE support page, which can make 4G calls on Vodafone but not to emergency numbers.

Devices removed from Vodafone VoLTE Support Page in 2023

The Samsung devices in yellow were removed and are missing from the update version of the page.

Many of the same devices are now caught up in the Samsung emergency calling issue and blocking, such as the Galaxy S6 and S7 series, Galaxy J5 Pro and more.

It’s a question of how things might be different if more action was taken then, by both the industry and regulators, rather than simply being treated as a “corporate and commercial matter”.

Where to now?

With a Senate committee currently investigating Triple Zero outages due to report by 14 April 2026, it remains to be seen what the findings will be.

The committee is perhaps somewhat unaware of the extent of the issues that persist for consumers, though many are detailed within the submissions provided to the Inquiry.

Senators are, however, critical about the role of the regulator (the ACMA) in all of this, in addition to the failings from the industry itself. That’s in addition to calls from consumer advocates like ACCAN and others that the regulatory framework which oversees these companies needs major reform.

Telecommunications are not currently regulated as an essential service.

Regardless of the report findings (including those by the regulator), the Federal Government, ACMA and the new Triple Zero Custodian are ultimately now faced with having to fix a mess in part caused by the failures and decisions made during the 2024 3G shutdown.

These problems were entirely foreseeable and entirely preventable, and even forewarned.

The Minister’s announcement of a Triple Zero review earlier this year is a central element to all of this and is critically needed, though with a reporting date in 2027, it remains to be seen what will be done in the near term.

In the intervening time, the telcos are proceeding with another round of price increases to further bolster strong corporate profits and, in the case of Telstra, to further enable it to spend billions buying back its own shares.

Whilst this happens, consumers continue to face a patchwork of inconsistencies about which phones are allowed and which aren’t, with many perfectly compatible devices still blocked from all services.

At the same time, the public is left with no way to actually confirm if 000 works on their devices – despite it being entirely possible to do so – and without impacting genuine calls or operators. Such a proposal was even a recommendation from the Schott Report.

It’s important to know these issues are entirely fixable. They just require real public transparency about what’s blocked and why, real enforcement of global technical standards, and testing and active oversight of the telecommunications sector as a whole. We have none of that currently and it shouldn’t require a consumer class action for this to change.

Fundamentally, public interests need to be prioritised over corporate interests. But for that to happen, there must be a willingness from the government, the communications minister and the regulator to see it through.

 

James Parker has a diverse background in I.T. and networking, a jack of all trades in the tech world.

]]>

The regulatory and industry failures behind Australia’s Triple Zero outages were not only foreseen, they are entirely rectifiable, writes James Parker.

AUSTRALIA'S telecommunications sector and public confidence in Triple Zero are at a crisis point.

Multiple emergency call failures late last year have shaken public confidence in a service that’s used by millions and essential for saving lives. These failures are a symptom of broader problems in the sector, including how emergency calling has been designed and implemented on 4G.

The idea that you can just pick up your phone and reliably access emergency services in Australia is no longer guaranteed, as it had been for decades prior with 2G and 3G.

Australia’s premature 2024 3G Network shutdown is a key reason as to why. Now a "canary in the coal mine" for Europe and the rest of the world, yet to fully transition.

In fact, Australia’s 3G shutdown has now gone so badly, with consumers impacted by phone compatibility issues and lives lost, that Europeans are now calling for further shutdown delays.

Australia is the blueprint of exactly what not to do.

Without 3G networks, attempted 000 calls from "software incompatible" 4G devices are now entirely invisible to carriers.

The 18 September 2025 Optus failure

What should have been a routine Optus firewall upgrade, started in the early hours of 18 September 2025, would eventually result in hundreds of failed calls to Triple Zero across several states.

Optus, once again in the spotlight for another failure, this time fatal.

A company surrounded by back-to-back controversies from a 2022 data breach, a 2023 national outage and in 2025 being found to have engaged in unconscionable sales conduct in the Federal Court.

Once again hauled before a Senate Inquiry, Optus is adamant they are addressing the issues, with CEO Stephen Rue under pressure to reform a company that can’t seem to get the basics right.

Dr Kerry Schott AO’s subsequent report and testimony to the Triple Zero Inquiry described the culture of carelessness within Optus. Procedures ignored, processes not followed.

But these issues aren’t exclusive to Optus, though they are particularly acute.

But when a sector as critical as telecommunications is given "light touch" regulation with minimal oversight by authorities, it’s no wonder that such failures occur.

The telecommunications sector is now the second most distrusted in the country and Optus Australia’s most distrusted telco brand.

The "Wentworth Falls Incident"

A week later, on 24 September 2025, there was a failed call to Triple Zero, but this time on the TPG/Vodafone network. A call failure that would later be confirmed to involve a death.

This was technically separate in nature from the week earlier Optus failure, but interconnected to broader failures in the sector, including its regulation.

However, the public wouldn’t find out about this incident, nor the death, until 9 December 2025 — more than two months later — when the industry, brought before a Senate Inquiry, would finally make it public.

The industry was perhaps keen to "get its story straight" prior to the hearing, as commented by Committee Chair Senator Hanson-Young, who described it as a "cover-up".

The cause was not directly a network failure but a device software issue.

The device at the centre of the incident? A Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro. A device that is technically "hardware compatible" but software incompatible.

It was an older 2018 device lacking a critical software update — an update is only required for the Vodafone prepaid version of the phone (‘VAP’ CSC). It is still able to place normal calls, but without that update installed, this device is unable to call 000 on 4G, but only on the Vodafone network, which is instead reliant on 3G for 000.

Though "unlocked retail" and other telco variants are entirely unaffected by the issue and do not even need the update.

The 3G "Circuit Switched Fallback" calling, which previously provided universal compatibility across devices and networks ... no longer exists in Australia.

The warnings that this would happen

To most people, the idea that a device needs a software update to work for an emergency call is a completely foreign concept.

Such a requirement is entirely unprecedented in decades past with 2G and 3G.

However, the Federal Government, regulators and industry were repeatedly warned that something like this would happen post-shutdown.

Such warnings exist even in the Witness Hansard record from the 2024 3G Shutdown Senate Inquiry, in addition to other correspondence and submissions from the public and technical experts.

These warnings were not heeded or correctly acted upon.

Changes to the ‘Emergency Call Service Determination’

What was the "fix" for this?

A ministerial device blocking instrument was introduced mere days before the 3G shutdown to brick all phones the carriers have determined are "incompatible" with Triple Zero on 4G.

Though arguably justified from a public safety perspective, the directive was clearly not fit for purpose and plagued with issues of potential conflict of interest and consumer harm, with no recourse for consumers should the carriers get it wrong.

The carriers were ultimately left to be the sole arbiters of what is allowed and what isn’t.

These same blocking rules currently see many new 4G and 5G phones blocked by some or all of the providers, including many phones used by tourists.

The carriers have conflicting ideas about what works.

Blocking of devices

Since the 3G shutdown, the telcos have essentially only blocked based on make and model (the TAC), not per individual device (unique IMEI).

This same approach allows "hardware compatible" devices to connect even if the software is unable to call Triple Zero. The telcos do this because it’s both cheaper and easier to only block based on make and model (TAC), rather than per device.

FOI Documents show TPG was aware that the device software of the Samsung J2 Pro (belonging to an 84-year-old customer) hadn’t been updated. Customers were instead subjected to reminders and warnings to update their software. 

The second death

Only after the September 2025 incidents did TPG move to individually (IMEI) block incompatible devices that required a software update.

However, such a move was carried out too late as another death due to a Samsung device issue would occur on 13 November 2025, once again on the Vodafone network.

This second incident was the first to be publicly reported, with the original 24 September death still entirely unknown to the public.

Awareness of these incidents was perhaps only brought to public attention as a result of heightened concerns after the Optus failure.

Prior to this, in May 2025, TPG told the regulator that blocking individual devices (IMEIs) was "resource intensive" and not operationally feasible. Yet, TPG subsequently did just that after the deaths occurred.

Invisible emergency call failures

Without 3G networks, attempted 000 calls from "software incompatible" 4G devices are now entirely invisible to carriers.

The 3G "Circuit Switched Fallback" calling, which previously provided universal compatibility across devices and networks for calls and emergency calls, no longer exists in Australia, and without it, there is no safety net to catch 4G (VoLTE) call failures.

This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the shutdown.

No different to a phone being suddenly out of signal range, emergency calls go nowhere and desperate calls for help are now unanswered.

Questions remain as to how many others have experienced the same issue, with the world entirely unaware of their trouble or their fate. There is little doubt this likely occurred before September 2025 and probably will again, if it hasn’t already.

The industry has no real-time visibility as to whether your phone can actually call Triple Zero, and is instead broadly over-reliant on "compliance documents", historical call records and crude software version data for device models to determine 4G (VoLTE) compatibility.

More troubling still, many devices that are capable (including on all networks) can sometimes take 60–90 seconds to connect, many often looking for 3G, then 2G, then 4G.

An ABC 7.30 report in October also highlighted some of these issues. This is now the new normal in a "post-3G shutdown" Australia.

 

The rapid blocking of Samsung devices

Following on from the 24 September incident, Telstra carried out some testing with a Samsung-supplied Galaxy J2 Pro — though it appears not enough.

In the following weeks, telcos rapidly blocked tens of thousands of Samsung devices across many models sold between 2015 and 2021, though not all equally.

Many devices were genuinely impacted (especially when used on Vodafone), but others were entirely unaffected by the issue. This occurred even without the critical update installed.

They were lumped in with the "incompatible" models because it’s both easier and cheaper to block a device – and sell someone a new one – rather than properly test anything, let alone roll out an update to fix those with a genuine problem.

Optus also, in its rush to address the issue, incorrectly told thousands of customers with Samsung devices they needed Android 13 or higher, when that was entirely incorrect. This mistake was only corrected weeks later, on 18 November, likely after it was raised with Optus by government officials acting on consumer complaints.

Those required an update only needed the latest available, as advised by both Telstra and Samsung.

Telstra advised: 'Devices that are running the most up-to-date software version available already have the fix installed on their device'.

Vodafone and Optus would also block some brand new 5G devices from other brands in the ensuing weeks, including many "whitelisted" as compatible by Telstra.

In the case of Vodafone, in early December, after the Senate hearing, it panic-blocked all "unknown" capability devices from their network, including recently purchased 2025-model 5G phones.

That’s on top of the various "non-phone" devices blocked by Optus, such as vehicle asset trackers, smartwatches, and IoT devices.

The same devices not blocked by Telstra:

...There are no detailed explanations as to why a device is blocked or not. The carriers are not even required to provide proof of incompatibility, let alone any public lists.

The failures with Samsung devices

Samsung, also called before the Senate Inquiry, was keen to distance itself from the problem and technical failings with its devices — failings now connected to at least two deaths.

It denied that a software update could have possibly broken anything, despite some extensive user testing and firmware analysis showing that this was true for many of its devices — especially Telstra, Optus or retail models originally sold with Android 7 or 8.

Samsung’s completely proprietary 4G calling software and network profile system for their devices, different to every other Android brand, was clearly plagued with technical failures and design flaws.

The inconvenient reality for Samsung is that changes in its device software (and specifically for the Australian market) in its (2019) Android 9 software release introduced a new line of code that "refreshes" the emergency settings ("network profile") in use by the device when connecting to a network for Triple Zero.

A change likely introduced to improve the functionality of devices contained a critical flaw if a device lacks settings for all AU networks.

Telstra, Optus and retail sold Samsung devices that worked before on Vodafone for 000 with Android 8 Samsung software, but which were now broken when updated to Android 9. These devices, like the Galaxy J5 Pro or even the Galaxy Note 8, were now unable to call 000 on Vodafone with 4G.

The phones are now looking for network settings that don’t exist on the device — the "forced refresh" clearing any pre-selected settings that would have otherwise worked.

If a device is missing the Vodafone emergency network settings and the phone is connected to the TPG/Vodafone network, the 000 call will fail. A very obvious flaw, though predominantly an issue for Vodafone customers.

The crucial "fix" for these Samsung devices is a 1.3 Kilobyte Text file in the Firmware, which contains Vodafone’s 4G 000 network settings. This is a file not consistently rolled out to all devices, despite Samsung being entirely capable of doing so.

The 4G emergency calling function was also only enabled on the Vodafone network in 2021, while Optus and Telstra have supported the function on Samsung devices since at least 2017.

Interestingly, the exact same Samsung devices not running Australian market Firmware are not impacted by the issue, instead using the 000 network settings of whatever carrier SIM card is installed. These devices are entirely unaffected if used solely with Telstra or Optus SIMs, as opposed to their "in case of no SIM or AU sales code" function for the Australian Market.

Yet many of these devices have been caught up in the blocking, are Samsung calling phones it manufactured itself and sold on "the grey market".

This is despite consumers being previously told their device (including overseas variants) was okay, including prior to the shutdown in 2024, with the Official AMTA 3G Shutdown Checker.

Samsung and the telcos are not legally required under emergency calling regulations to recall incompatible devices and supply "like-for-like" free replacements.

Telstra’s report on the issue

Compounding this further, Telstra’s report on the problem to the Federal Government and ACMA, in October, is also actually incorrect in some of the specifics, including the nature and scale of the problem.

This asserts ‘all pre-November 2021 Samsung models’ are impacted and, without an update, are unable to call 000 on Vodafone with 4G.

It also states that the forced device behaviour 'ignores/overrides all Carrier and SIM card settings', which is entirely incorrect and is provably wrong.

A clear sign that Telstra hasn’t properly tested the phones, which it sold, including the Galaxy J2 Pro, which doesn’t even require the update.

Others sold with Android 7 or 8 are also not affected if they were sold by Telstra or Optus (with those carriers' respective software installed), including the S6 and S7, which have now been blocked.

Those devices are entirely capable of calling Triple Zero on Vodafone by using Telstra or Optus emergency profile settings.

Non-existent transparency

But with all of this, there are no detailed explanations as to why a device is blocked or not. The carriers are not even required to provide proof of incompatibility, let alone any public lists.

The only available public list and dataset available for consumers is not created by the regulator or industry, but instead by this author, and may be viewed HERE.

Tabled Senate Inquiry documents show Australian telcos were absolutely aware of device compatibility issues prior to the first 3G shutdown.

‘Just buy a new one’

In our modern culture of device disposability, unrepairability and corporate (and regulatory) indifference, it’s no wonder the "just buy a new one" mentality has been used as the only solution.

Anything other than that is put in the too-hard-basket – including by those that should be on the hook to fix this problem – or made to be someone else’s problem to solve.

Samsung and the telcos are not legally required under emergency calling regulations to recall incompatible devices and supply "like-for-like" free replacements, with any such offer of free devices or discounts solely an act of "goodwill".

The costs for these failings are instead borne by consumers and not the industry that allowed all of this to happen in the first place.

Another round of privatised gains and socialised losses.

Telco awareness of the 4G emergency calling issues

Back in 2022, telecoms policy expert Rudolf van der Berg made a presentation to a European Emergency Calling forum, raising the alarm about the issues with emergency calling on 4G and the safety impacts of 2G/3G shutdowns. He called on regulators and governments to stop the shutdowns until the technical issues were resolved.

Van der Berg said these issues are "common knowledge" in the industry and that "...there is nobody who feels responsible to fix this".

Tabled Senate Inquiry documents show Australian telcos were absolutely aware of device compatibility issues prior to the first 3G shutdown.

The carriers jointly briefed regulator ACMA about the problem of 4G (VoLTE-capable) devices that are unable to call Triple Zero on 4G, on 8 December 2023 — seven days before TPG/Vodafone would start their 3G shutdown.

However, curiously, months earlier in late July/August 2023, Vodafone quietly removed devices from their official VoLTE support page, which can make 4G calls on Vodafone but not to emergency numbers.

Devices removed from Vodafone VoLTE Support Page in 2023

The Samsung devices in yellow were removed and are missing from the update version of the page.

Many of the same devices are now caught up in the Samsung emergency calling issue and blocking, such as the Galaxy S6 and S7 series, Galaxy J5 Pro and more.

It’s a question of how things might be different if more action was taken then, by both the industry and regulators, rather than simply being treated as a “corporate and commercial matter”.

Where to now?

With a Senate committee currently investigating Triple Zero outages due to report by 14 April 2026, it remains to be seen what the findings will be.

The committee is perhaps somewhat unaware of the extent of the issues that persist for consumers, though many are detailed within the submissions provided to the Inquiry.

Senators are, however, critical about the role of the regulator (the ACMA) in all of this, in addition to the failings from the industry itself. That’s in addition to calls from consumer advocates like ACCAN and others that the regulatory framework which oversees these companies needs major reform.

Telecommunications are not currently regulated as an essential service.

Regardless of the report findings (including those by the regulator), the Federal Government, ACMA and the new Triple Zero Custodian are ultimately now faced with having to fix a mess in part caused by the failures and decisions made during the 2024 3G shutdown.

These problems were entirely foreseeable and entirely preventable, and even forewarned.

The Minister’s announcement of a Triple Zero review earlier this year is a central element to all of this and is critically needed, though with a reporting date in 2027, it remains to be seen what will be done in the near term.

In the intervening time, the telcos are proceeding with another round of price increases to further bolster strong corporate profits and, in the case of Telstra, to further enable it to spend billions buying back its own shares.

Whilst this happens, consumers continue to face a patchwork of inconsistencies about which phones are allowed and which aren’t, with many perfectly compatible devices still blocked from all services.

At the same time, the public is left with no way to actually confirm if 000 works on their devices – despite it being entirely possible to do so – and without impacting genuine calls or operators. Such a proposal was even a recommendation from the Schott Report.

It’s important to know these issues are entirely fixable. They just require real public transparency about what’s blocked and why, real enforcement of global technical standards, and testing and active oversight of the telecommunications sector as a whole. We have none of that currently and it shouldn’t require a consumer class action for this to change.

Fundamentally, public interests need to be prioritised over corporate interests. But for that to happen, there must be a willingness from the government, the communications minister and the regulator to see it through.

 

James Parker has a diverse background in I.T. and networking, a jack of all trades in the tech world.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/artemis-ii-back-to-the-moon-while-space-governance-falls-behind,20926?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/artemis-ii-back-to-the-moon-while-space-governance-falls-behind,20926?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The space around Earth has been transformed – low Earth orbit has filled with thousands of satellites, turning space from an empty frontier into a crowded, contested and rapidly evolving domain, writes Paul Budde. 

I VIVIDLY REMEMBER the Moon landing in 1969. Watching the recent Artemis II capsule splash down, it felt like a moment of déjà vu, the same visuals – be it in a better quality now - the same ocean recovery, almost unchanged after more than half a century. From that perspective, it is tempting to conclude that space itself has evolved only slowly.

But that impression is deeply misleading. While human spaceflight still follows familiar patterns, the space around Earth has been transformed. In the decades since Apollo – and especially over the last ten years– low Earth orbit (LEO) has filled with thousands of satellites, turning space from an empty frontier into a crowded, contested and rapidly evolving domain.

It is precisely this disconnect between what we see and what is actually happening that sits at the heart of today’s policy challenge. For decades, space policy was built around a simple assumption: access to orbit was rare, expensive, and tightly controlled. That assumption shaped everything from international treaties to spectrum coordination and national licensing regimes. It is now wrong.

Over the past ten years, space has undergone a quiet but profound transformation. Launch has become cheaper, faster, and more accessible. Satellites are smaller, smarter, and deployed in far greater numbers. What was once the preserve of superpowers and defence contractors is now within reach of universities, start-ups, and non-traditional actors.

The problem is not that this transformation is happening. The problem is that governance has not kept up.

From scarcity to abundance in low Earth orbit

A decade ago, launching even a small satellite required deep pockets and years of planning. Costs were prohibitive, launch slots were scarce, and regulatory coordination was slow by design. That environment-imposed discipline.

Today, launch costs to low Earth orbit have collapsed. Reusable rockets, commercial launch competition, and higher launch cadence have fundamentally altered the economics. At the same time, access methods have diversified. Air-launch systems, responsive launch platforms and experimental approaches are expanding who can reach orbit and how quickly they can do so.

The result is a shift from scarcity to abundance. Thousands of satellites are now active in LEO, with many more planned. Deployment timelines that once stretched over years are now measured in months or even weeks.

That speed is economically attractive. It is also politically destabilising.

Regulation built for a slower world

International space coordination still relies heavily on frameworks designed in an era of slow-moving, state-dominated activity. The ITU’s spectrum coordination process assumes advance notice, good-faith compliance, and manageable volumes of satellites.

In practice, that system is under strain.

Commercial operators increasingly treat regulatory filings as parallel processes rather than hard prerequisites. National regulators are forced to balance innovation pressure against coordination obligations. Enforcement is uneven, and penalties are often symbolic compared to commercial incentives.

More troubling is the behaviour of states. Orbital manoeuvres without timely notification, ambiguous satellite missions, and deliberate debris-creating activities all point to a weakening of shared norms. When major powers signal that strategic priorities outweigh collective restraint, smaller actors take note.

This is how rules erode — not through formal abandonment, but through selective disregard.

Space is now a security domain, not a neutral one

Space systems underpin modern economies and militaries. Navigation, communications, surveillance, weather forecasting, financial timing, and logistics all depend on orbital infrastructure. Disruption in space is no longer abstract; it has immediate terrestrial consequences.

At the same time, the line between civilian and military space assets is increasingly blurred. Dual-use satellites, commercial imagery, and privately operated constellations complicate traditional distinctions between peaceful and hostile activity.

Lower barriers to entry mean that capabilities once limited to a handful of states are now accessible to many more actors — including those with limited accountability. This does not require dramatic weaponisation to be destabilising. Interference, proximity operations, and debris generation are enough.

The strategic risk lies less in deliberate escalation than in miscalculation within an overcrowded and weakly governed environment.

The governance gap is the real threat

The central issue is not technology. It is institutional lag.

Space governance still assumes that coordination can be slow, consensus-driven, and largely voluntary. That assumption is incompatible with rapid launch cycles, commercial competition, and geopolitical rivalry.

History offers a warning. The internet followed a similar trajectory: early openness, explosive growth, delayed governance, and eventual weaponisation of gaps. Space is now on the same path, but with fewer corrective options once damage is done.

The challenge for policymakers is to recognise that maintaining sustainability in orbit now requires active governance, not passive norm-setting. Transparency, enforcement, and accountability must scale with operational reality.

Bottom line

Cheap and rapid access to space has outpaced the rules designed to manage it. Unless governance frameworks evolve as quickly as launch technology has, space will become not just congested but contested in ways that are harder to reverse. The world has already changed. The only question is whether policy catches up before the consequences do.

 

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

 

 

 

]]>

The space around Earth has been transformed – low Earth orbit has filled with thousands of satellites, turning space from an empty frontier into a crowded, contested and rapidly evolving domain, writes Paul Budde. 

I VIVIDLY REMEMBER the Moon landing in 1969. Watching the recent Artemis II capsule splash down, it felt like a moment of déjà vu, the same visuals – be it in a better quality now - the same ocean recovery, almost unchanged after more than half a century. From that perspective, it is tempting to conclude that space itself has evolved only slowly.

But that impression is deeply misleading. While human spaceflight still follows familiar patterns, the space around Earth has been transformed. In the decades since Apollo – and especially over the last ten years– low Earth orbit (LEO) has filled with thousands of satellites, turning space from an empty frontier into a crowded, contested and rapidly evolving domain.

It is precisely this disconnect between what we see and what is actually happening that sits at the heart of today’s policy challenge. For decades, space policy was built around a simple assumption: access to orbit was rare, expensive, and tightly controlled. That assumption shaped everything from international treaties to spectrum coordination and national licensing regimes. It is now wrong.

Over the past ten years, space has undergone a quiet but profound transformation. Launch has become cheaper, faster, and more accessible. Satellites are smaller, smarter, and deployed in far greater numbers. What was once the preserve of superpowers and defence contractors is now within reach of universities, start-ups, and non-traditional actors.

The problem is not that this transformation is happening. The problem is that governance has not kept up.

From scarcity to abundance in low Earth orbit

A decade ago, launching even a small satellite required deep pockets and years of planning. Costs were prohibitive, launch slots were scarce, and regulatory coordination was slow by design. That environment-imposed discipline.

Today, launch costs to low Earth orbit have collapsed. Reusable rockets, commercial launch competition, and higher launch cadence have fundamentally altered the economics. At the same time, access methods have diversified. Air-launch systems, responsive launch platforms and experimental approaches are expanding who can reach orbit and how quickly they can do so.

The result is a shift from scarcity to abundance. Thousands of satellites are now active in LEO, with many more planned. Deployment timelines that once stretched over years are now measured in months or even weeks.

That speed is economically attractive. It is also politically destabilising.

Regulation built for a slower world

International space coordination still relies heavily on frameworks designed in an era of slow-moving, state-dominated activity. The ITU’s spectrum coordination process assumes advance notice, good-faith compliance, and manageable volumes of satellites.

In practice, that system is under strain.

Commercial operators increasingly treat regulatory filings as parallel processes rather than hard prerequisites. National regulators are forced to balance innovation pressure against coordination obligations. Enforcement is uneven, and penalties are often symbolic compared to commercial incentives.

More troubling is the behaviour of states. Orbital manoeuvres without timely notification, ambiguous satellite missions, and deliberate debris-creating activities all point to a weakening of shared norms. When major powers signal that strategic priorities outweigh collective restraint, smaller actors take note.

This is how rules erode — not through formal abandonment, but through selective disregard.

Space is now a security domain, not a neutral one

Space systems underpin modern economies and militaries. Navigation, communications, surveillance, weather forecasting, financial timing, and logistics all depend on orbital infrastructure. Disruption in space is no longer abstract; it has immediate terrestrial consequences.

At the same time, the line between civilian and military space assets is increasingly blurred. Dual-use satellites, commercial imagery, and privately operated constellations complicate traditional distinctions between peaceful and hostile activity.

Lower barriers to entry mean that capabilities once limited to a handful of states are now accessible to many more actors — including those with limited accountability. This does not require dramatic weaponisation to be destabilising. Interference, proximity operations, and debris generation are enough.

The strategic risk lies less in deliberate escalation than in miscalculation within an overcrowded and weakly governed environment.

The governance gap is the real threat

The central issue is not technology. It is institutional lag.

Space governance still assumes that coordination can be slow, consensus-driven, and largely voluntary. That assumption is incompatible with rapid launch cycles, commercial competition, and geopolitical rivalry.

History offers a warning. The internet followed a similar trajectory: early openness, explosive growth, delayed governance, and eventual weaponisation of gaps. Space is now on the same path, but with fewer corrective options once damage is done.

The challenge for policymakers is to recognise that maintaining sustainability in orbit now requires active governance, not passive norm-setting. Transparency, enforcement, and accountability must scale with operational reality.

Bottom line

Cheap and rapid access to space has outpaced the rules designed to manage it. Unless governance frameworks evolve as quickly as launch technology has, space will become not just congested but contested in ways that are harder to reverse. The world has already changed. The only question is whether policy catches up before the consequences do.

 

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

 

 

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nationals-leader-matt-canavans-latest-citizenship-thought-bubble,20925?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nationals-leader-matt-canavans-latest-citizenship-thought-bubble,20925?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

New Nationals Leader Matt Canavan wants to make it harder for permanent residents to become Australian citizens.

Canavan is reported to have “argued that citizenship standards had become too lax” and that “current hurdles to become an Australian citizen" (as opposed to a permanent resident) were “more of a tick and flick, in contrast to tighter rules that he claimed existed when his Italian grandparents arrived in Australia”.

Canavan goes on to say:

"... we should have fit and proper person tests of very, very stringent levels to become Australian citizens”.

Three questions arise: 

1. Are Matt Canavan's claims of lax citizenship standards accurate?
2. What would his purpose of making access to citizenship harder? What problem would it solve — or indeed exacerbate?
3. How would Canavan’s strict "fit and proper person test" differ from the existing character test and what would it actually achieve (apart from the political rhetoric)?

Is Canavan’s claim of lax citizenship standards accurate?

In a word, no! For the past 20 years, we have made access to citizenship harder and harder, but with very little to show for it in terms of improved social cohesion or integration.

While some will argue this is about improving national security, there is little evidence to support the assertion that making access to citizenship harder for permanent residents somehow improves national security. There is a strong argument that it is, in fact, detrimental to national security, as it increases frustration and a feeling of exclusion amongst permanent residents of Australia.  

It is important to note that the process of becoming a citizen is a distinct and subsequent process to becoming a permanent resident. Many permanent residents continue to live in Australia for decades without becoming Australian citizens. This is particularly the case for citizens of the United Kingdom, who are amongst the most reluctant to take out Australian citizenship.

This is partly because, in practical terms, citizenship has little effect on the material situation of migrants in Australia. As permanent residents, they have access to the welfare support (after a four-year waiting period), Medicare, public education and so on, available to the general population. Humanitarian entrants also have access to special settlement services to assist them in participating in mainstream life as soon as possible.

The main material advantages of citizenship for migrants are security from deportation, an Australian passport and eligibility for permanent government employment (including in the armed services). The key requirement Australian citizenship imposes is the obligation to enrol to vote.

It makes sense to maintain high standards for access to permanent residence, but not much sense to then make access to citizenship difficult.

That is why, for 50 years, both Labor and the Coalition viewed citizenship through a social cohesion and inclusion lens rather than a material benefit and exclusion lens.

50 years of promoting Australian citizenship

For the period following the passage of the Citizenship Act in 1949 until the mid-2000s, both Coalition and Labor governments considered that maximising the proportion of permanent residents who become citizens was an indicator of the success of the migration program.

In 1948, then Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell said Australian Citizenship:

...will symbolise not only our own pride in Australia, but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians we are seeking in such vast numbers. These people are sure of a warm welcome to our shores. They will no longer need to strive towards an intangible goal, but can aspire to the honour of Australian citizenship.

 

… My aim, and that of the Government, is to make the word, ‘Australian’ mean all that it truly stands for to every member of our community.

In 1952, then Immigration Department Secretary Sir Tasman Hayes said:

“...a high rate of naturalisation would be evidence of the success of our immigration policies.”

However, take-up of citizenship remained low in the five to six years after the Citizenship Act was made law in 1949. Prior to changes made in 1955, the number of migrants making applications was very low: before 1952, less than half of all migrants had declared an intention to naturalise and of those who had, 75 per cent had not actually done so.

Numerous changes were made by the Menzies Government to the Citizenship Act in 1955 to make it easier to secure citizenship, including:

• declarations of intention to apply for citizenship no longer had to be made two years before the application;
• applications could be made six months prior to the end of the five-year residency qualifying period; and
• the requirement for intending applicants to advertise their intentions in the newspaper was removed.

These changes brought a significant rise in the number of those becoming Australian citizens, jumping from 4,770 in 1954 to 49,087 in 1959. Despite these changes, however, more than half of those who would have qualified did not apply for citizenship, with one of the most cited reasons being the level of English used in official documents.

From the early 1960s, the Menzies Government sought to further increase immigration, also leading to a surge in the numbers of those attaining citizenship following the introduction of a new and simplified application form in 1961: 53,211 people became citizens in 1962, which was an increase of more than 10,000 people on the previous year.

In 1966, the new Holt Government started the long process of abolishing the White Australia Policy, partly to further boost immigration levels. The new policy saw the immigration program peak at 185,000 people in 1969. But in contrast, the number of those granted citizenship fell to 26,845 in 1969-70. Part of this would have been linked to the Vietnam War.

In 1969, further changes were made to the Citizenship Act, including reducing the residency requirement for non-British migrants to two years, if they could read, write, speak and understand English proficiently. 

While the Whitlam Government significantly reduced immigration levels, it also changed the Citizenship Act to introduce the same requirements relating to residence, good character, language ability, rights and duties of citizenship, and the intention to live in Australia permanently. These would be applied equally to everyone, with the oath or affirmation to be taken by all. 

The Fraser Government made few changes to Citizenship policy, but did seek to increase immigration levels, including through the establishment of points-tested migration, regularisation of overstayers, management of boat arrivals from Vietnam and implementation of the Galbally Report on migrant settlement services.

The Hawke Government initially reduced immigration levels following the 1982 recession. It amended the Citizenship Act to remove discrimination in relation to sex, marital status and nationality. The English language requirement was changed from "adequate" to "basic" and applicants aged over 50 were exempted from the English language requirement.

References to "British subject" were grandfathered to reflect the national identity of all Australians. The following year saw a rise in the number of new citizens with 114,914 grants of naturalisation in 1985-86, an increase of 20,000 on 1984-85.

The Citizenship Act was again amended in 1986 so that not all children born in Australia would automatically become Australian citizens (ie abolition of birthright citizenship that is so controversial in the USA). The requirement for new citizens to renounce other allegiances was also deleted.

1989 was declared the "Year of Citizenship" by Hawke and a letter was sent to every household encouraging those eligible to apply for citizenship. An advertising campaign was launched, as well as a telephone hotline. The publicity saw 130,312 people granted citizenship in 1989-90, the most in any year in the 20^th Century. This was a counter to John Howard’s concerns about too much migration from Asia.

The Keating Government and the early period of the Howard Government focused on the promotion of citizenship to increase take-up.

In 1998, Howard established the Australian Citizenship Council under Sir Ninian Stephen. In 2000, the Council recommended the abolition of s17 of the Citizenship Act so that Australians would not lose their citizenship upon the acquisition of another country’s citizenship, as well as more generous citizenship by descent provisions for children of Australian citizens born overseas.

Another citizenship promotion campaign followed.

But that was to be the end of a period of around 50 years where Australian governments sought to increase the take-up of citizenship. Citizenship would no longer be about social cohesion through inclusion.

Making access to citizenship harder

Contrary to Canavan’s claims, governments have sought to make access to citizenship harder for almost 20 years.

Around 2005, John Howard started a debate on a citizenship test. That was not based on any research or independent review but a personal belief, largely associated with his antipathy to a multicultural society. He initially appointed John Cobb as Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to progress his idea of a more formal citizenship test. In 2006, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs released a discussion paper on the merits of introducing the citizenship test that Howard wanted, Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony.

In his foreword to the discussion paper, then Parliamentary Secretary Andrew Robb, stated that Australia has:

'... successfully combined people into one family with one overriding culture, based on a set of common values” and that it was critical that new immigrants “understand the Australian way of life and our shared values and demonstrate a commitment to contributing to that way of life and accepting those values.'

Robb appeared to be suggesting that the test was a way to force migrants to learn more about the Australian way of life and values. That is a perfectly sound public policy objective, but it’s not clear that having to answer a few multiple-choice questions is the best way to achieve that. The "Good Neighbour" movement of the Menzies era was a much more effective way to achieve Robb’s objective, but that sort of thinking was not consistent with Howard’s approach.

The Citizenship Act was significantly restructured in 2007. It introduced a number of measures relating to national security, as well as the extension of the residency requirement to four years, including a 12-month period of permanent residence before making the application. It is this change that, in particular, has grown the portion of permanent residents unable to access citizenship.

The Howard Government introduced a new test requirement for citizenship applicants consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn from a larger pool of questions and based upon information on Australian history, culture and values. English language skills would be assessed by the ability to pass the test in English. The stated aim of the test was that it 'would encourage prospective citizens to obtain the knowledge they need to support successful integration into Australian society.'

Failing the test did not mean the applicant lost their permanent resident status — just that they would have to sit the test again and again if they wanted citizenship.

A review of the test undertaken by the Rudd Government found the test was 'flawed, intimidating to some and discriminatory', and that the resource booklet needed to be rewritten in basic English to fit with the legislative requirements of the test.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced that the resource book for the test would be rewritten, the pass mark would be raised and questions would focus on knowledge relevant to the Pledge of Commitment rather than on broader general knowledge of Australian history and culture.

Stricter vetting of citizenship applications

Former Immigration Minister Peter Dutton made two key changes to citizenship law.

First, he introduced legislation enabling the Minister to cancel the citizenship of dual citizens who commit certain crimes and have completed their sentences. This legislation was overturned by the High Court, leading to the Labor Government reintroducing a similar power, but to be determined by a judge rather than the minister.

Second, Dutton introduced much stricter character vetting of citizenship applications, despite the fact all permanent residents have already passed the character test. This would appear to be similar to Canavan’s current proposal for increased vetting to determine if citizenship applicants are "fit and proper" persons, beyond the character test they passed when they acquired permanent residence and have to pass again when they apply for citizenship.

Canavan may not be aware that Dutton’s stricter vetting achieved very little other than to increase processing times, backlogs and costs. The delays attracted severe criticism from the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman.

Presumably, Canavan wants to use a broader (and more stringent) "fit and proper" person test rather than just the existing character test. But unless that can be made into some sort of objective test that does not contravene the Racial Discrimination Act (1975), nor key segments of the Constitution (for instance, s116 relating to religion), the change may achieve little more than Dutton’s stricter character vetting.

A subjective fit and proper person test would simply be an administrative and legal nightmare. If Canavan’s concern is that migrants applying for citizenship do not have adequate English, then make them sit a dedicated English language test. But testing for their beliefs and behaviours sounds more like something that a totalitarian society would do at a re-education camp.

What a subjective fit and proper person test may achieve is a greater level of frustration and anger amongst permanent residents at another ham-fisted attempt at being excluded from citizenship. But perhaps that is Canavan’s objective — along with the usual dog whistling to try and attract back voters crossing over to One Nation.

In this regard, One Nation’s proposal to increase the residency requirement for citizenship to eight years rather than the current four is legally more deliverable, even if that would do nothing to increase social cohesion, as it would only further increase the number of permanent residents excluded from citizenship. Hanson may not be fussed about attacking social cohesion, as she seems to thrive on division.   

In terms of citizenship policy, both Canavan and Hanson appear to believe the opposite of those who started and ran our post-War migration program for 50 years. They seem to believe that maximising the number of permanent residents who are excluded from citizenship is somehow a positive for Australian society. They are yet to explain why that would be so.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.

]]>

New Nationals Leader Matt Canavan wants to make it harder for permanent residents to become Australian citizens.

Canavan is reported to have “argued that citizenship standards had become too lax” and that “current hurdles to become an Australian citizen" (as opposed to a permanent resident) were “more of a tick and flick, in contrast to tighter rules that he claimed existed when his Italian grandparents arrived in Australia”.

Canavan goes on to say:

"... we should have fit and proper person tests of very, very stringent levels to become Australian citizens”.

Three questions arise: 

1. Are Matt Canavan's claims of lax citizenship standards accurate?
2. What would his purpose of making access to citizenship harder? What problem would it solve — or indeed exacerbate?
3. How would Canavan’s strict "fit and proper person test" differ from the existing character test and what would it actually achieve (apart from the political rhetoric)?

Is Canavan’s claim of lax citizenship standards accurate?

In a word, no! For the past 20 years, we have made access to citizenship harder and harder, but with very little to show for it in terms of improved social cohesion or integration.

While some will argue this is about improving national security, there is little evidence to support the assertion that making access to citizenship harder for permanent residents somehow improves national security. There is a strong argument that it is, in fact, detrimental to national security, as it increases frustration and a feeling of exclusion amongst permanent residents of Australia.  

It is important to note that the process of becoming a citizen is a distinct and subsequent process to becoming a permanent resident. Many permanent residents continue to live in Australia for decades without becoming Australian citizens. This is particularly the case for citizens of the United Kingdom, who are amongst the most reluctant to take out Australian citizenship.

This is partly because, in practical terms, citizenship has little effect on the material situation of migrants in Australia. As permanent residents, they have access to the welfare support (after a four-year waiting period), Medicare, public education and so on, available to the general population. Humanitarian entrants also have access to special settlement services to assist them in participating in mainstream life as soon as possible.

The main material advantages of citizenship for migrants are security from deportation, an Australian passport and eligibility for permanent government employment (including in the armed services). The key requirement Australian citizenship imposes is the obligation to enrol to vote.

It makes sense to maintain high standards for access to permanent residence, but not much sense to then make access to citizenship difficult.

That is why, for 50 years, both Labor and the Coalition viewed citizenship through a social cohesion and inclusion lens rather than a material benefit and exclusion lens.

50 years of promoting Australian citizenship

For the period following the passage of the Citizenship Act in 1949 until the mid-2000s, both Coalition and Labor governments considered that maximising the proportion of permanent residents who become citizens was an indicator of the success of the migration program.

In 1948, then Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell said Australian Citizenship:

...will symbolise not only our own pride in Australia, but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians we are seeking in such vast numbers. These people are sure of a warm welcome to our shores. They will no longer need to strive towards an intangible goal, but can aspire to the honour of Australian citizenship.

 

… My aim, and that of the Government, is to make the word, ‘Australian’ mean all that it truly stands for to every member of our community.

In 1952, then Immigration Department Secretary Sir Tasman Hayes said:

“...a high rate of naturalisation would be evidence of the success of our immigration policies.”

However, take-up of citizenship remained low in the five to six years after the Citizenship Act was made law in 1949. Prior to changes made in 1955, the number of migrants making applications was very low: before 1952, less than half of all migrants had declared an intention to naturalise and of those who had, 75 per cent had not actually done so.

Numerous changes were made by the Menzies Government to the Citizenship Act in 1955 to make it easier to secure citizenship, including:

• declarations of intention to apply for citizenship no longer had to be made two years before the application;
• applications could be made six months prior to the end of the five-year residency qualifying period; and
• the requirement for intending applicants to advertise their intentions in the newspaper was removed.

These changes brought a significant rise in the number of those becoming Australian citizens, jumping from 4,770 in 1954 to 49,087 in 1959. Despite these changes, however, more than half of those who would have qualified did not apply for citizenship, with one of the most cited reasons being the level of English used in official documents.

From the early 1960s, the Menzies Government sought to further increase immigration, also leading to a surge in the numbers of those attaining citizenship following the introduction of a new and simplified application form in 1961: 53,211 people became citizens in 1962, which was an increase of more than 10,000 people on the previous year.

In 1966, the new Holt Government started the long process of abolishing the White Australia Policy, partly to further boost immigration levels. The new policy saw the immigration program peak at 185,000 people in 1969. But in contrast, the number of those granted citizenship fell to 26,845 in 1969-70. Part of this would have been linked to the Vietnam War.

In 1969, further changes were made to the Citizenship Act, including reducing the residency requirement for non-British migrants to two years, if they could read, write, speak and understand English proficiently. 

While the Whitlam Government significantly reduced immigration levels, it also changed the Citizenship Act to introduce the same requirements relating to residence, good character, language ability, rights and duties of citizenship, and the intention to live in Australia permanently. These would be applied equally to everyone, with the oath or affirmation to be taken by all. 

The Fraser Government made few changes to Citizenship policy, but did seek to increase immigration levels, including through the establishment of points-tested migration, regularisation of overstayers, management of boat arrivals from Vietnam and implementation of the Galbally Report on migrant settlement services.

The Hawke Government initially reduced immigration levels following the 1982 recession. It amended the Citizenship Act to remove discrimination in relation to sex, marital status and nationality. The English language requirement was changed from "adequate" to "basic" and applicants aged over 50 were exempted from the English language requirement.

References to "British subject" were grandfathered to reflect the national identity of all Australians. The following year saw a rise in the number of new citizens with 114,914 grants of naturalisation in 1985-86, an increase of 20,000 on 1984-85.

The Citizenship Act was again amended in 1986 so that not all children born in Australia would automatically become Australian citizens (ie abolition of birthright citizenship that is so controversial in the USA). The requirement for new citizens to renounce other allegiances was also deleted.

1989 was declared the "Year of Citizenship" by Hawke and a letter was sent to every household encouraging those eligible to apply for citizenship. An advertising campaign was launched, as well as a telephone hotline. The publicity saw 130,312 people granted citizenship in 1989-90, the most in any year in the 20^th Century. This was a counter to John Howard’s concerns about too much migration from Asia.

The Keating Government and the early period of the Howard Government focused on the promotion of citizenship to increase take-up.

In 1998, Howard established the Australian Citizenship Council under Sir Ninian Stephen. In 2000, the Council recommended the abolition of s17 of the Citizenship Act so that Australians would not lose their citizenship upon the acquisition of another country’s citizenship, as well as more generous citizenship by descent provisions for children of Australian citizens born overseas.

Another citizenship promotion campaign followed.

But that was to be the end of a period of around 50 years where Australian governments sought to increase the take-up of citizenship. Citizenship would no longer be about social cohesion through inclusion.

Making access to citizenship harder

Contrary to Canavan’s claims, governments have sought to make access to citizenship harder for almost 20 years.

Around 2005, John Howard started a debate on a citizenship test. That was not based on any research or independent review but a personal belief, largely associated with his antipathy to a multicultural society. He initially appointed John Cobb as Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to progress his idea of a more formal citizenship test. In 2006, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs released a discussion paper on the merits of introducing the citizenship test that Howard wanted, Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony.

In his foreword to the discussion paper, then Parliamentary Secretary Andrew Robb, stated that Australia has:

'... successfully combined people into one family with one overriding culture, based on a set of common values” and that it was critical that new immigrants “understand the Australian way of life and our shared values and demonstrate a commitment to contributing to that way of life and accepting those values.'

Robb appeared to be suggesting that the test was a way to force migrants to learn more about the Australian way of life and values. That is a perfectly sound public policy objective, but it’s not clear that having to answer a few multiple-choice questions is the best way to achieve that. The "Good Neighbour" movement of the Menzies era was a much more effective way to achieve Robb’s objective, but that sort of thinking was not consistent with Howard’s approach.

The Citizenship Act was significantly restructured in 2007. It introduced a number of measures relating to national security, as well as the extension of the residency requirement to four years, including a 12-month period of permanent residence before making the application. It is this change that, in particular, has grown the portion of permanent residents unable to access citizenship.

The Howard Government introduced a new test requirement for citizenship applicants consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn from a larger pool of questions and based upon information on Australian history, culture and values. English language skills would be assessed by the ability to pass the test in English. The stated aim of the test was that it 'would encourage prospective citizens to obtain the knowledge they need to support successful integration into Australian society.'

Failing the test did not mean the applicant lost their permanent resident status — just that they would have to sit the test again and again if they wanted citizenship.

A review of the test undertaken by the Rudd Government found the test was 'flawed, intimidating to some and discriminatory', and that the resource booklet needed to be rewritten in basic English to fit with the legislative requirements of the test.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced that the resource book for the test would be rewritten, the pass mark would be raised and questions would focus on knowledge relevant to the Pledge of Commitment rather than on broader general knowledge of Australian history and culture.

Stricter vetting of citizenship applications

Former Immigration Minister Peter Dutton made two key changes to citizenship law.

First, he introduced legislation enabling the Minister to cancel the citizenship of dual citizens who commit certain crimes and have completed their sentences. This legislation was overturned by the High Court, leading to the Labor Government reintroducing a similar power, but to be determined by a judge rather than the minister.

Second, Dutton introduced much stricter character vetting of citizenship applications, despite the fact all permanent residents have already passed the character test. This would appear to be similar to Canavan’s current proposal for increased vetting to determine if citizenship applicants are "fit and proper" persons, beyond the character test they passed when they acquired permanent residence and have to pass again when they apply for citizenship.

Canavan may not be aware that Dutton’s stricter vetting achieved very little other than to increase processing times, backlogs and costs. The delays attracted severe criticism from the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman.

Presumably, Canavan wants to use a broader (and more stringent) "fit and proper" person test rather than just the existing character test. But unless that can be made into some sort of objective test that does not contravene the Racial Discrimination Act (1975), nor key segments of the Constitution (for instance, s116 relating to religion), the change may achieve little more than Dutton’s stricter character vetting.

A subjective fit and proper person test would simply be an administrative and legal nightmare. If Canavan’s concern is that migrants applying for citizenship do not have adequate English, then make them sit a dedicated English language test. But testing for their beliefs and behaviours sounds more like something that a totalitarian society would do at a re-education camp.

What a subjective fit and proper person test may achieve is a greater level of frustration and anger amongst permanent residents at another ham-fisted attempt at being excluded from citizenship. But perhaps that is Canavan’s objective — along with the usual dog whistling to try and attract back voters crossing over to One Nation.

In this regard, One Nation’s proposal to increase the residency requirement for citizenship to eight years rather than the current four is legally more deliverable, even if that would do nothing to increase social cohesion, as it would only further increase the number of permanent residents excluded from citizenship. Hanson may not be fussed about attacking social cohesion, as she seems to thrive on division.   

In terms of citizenship policy, both Canavan and Hanson appear to believe the opposite of those who started and ran our post-War migration program for 50 years. They seem to believe that maximising the number of permanent residents who are excluded from citizenship is somehow a positive for Australian society. They are yet to explain why that would be so.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-one-nation-and-reform-voters-are-perpetrators-not-victims,20919?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-one-nation-and-reform-voters-are-perpetrators-not-victims,20919?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The way people use their vote is a moral choice and people should not be pitied when they use their vote to deliberately harm others, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.

IT IS TIME we killed the toxic idea that people who voted for Trump, or in Australia, vote for One Nation, or in the UK, vote for Reform, are the victims of society. This notion legitimises and normalises their hatred.

This story also ignores the true victims of the devastation leaders like Trump have inflicted on the entire world; everyone who did not vote for these people is the victim, not those who selfishly and recklessly chose to put monsters in charge. We should be calling these people out for their morally bad behaviour as the perpetrators of harm rather than endorsing their choices as if they were justified.

The “hard-right voters are victims” narrative characterises these voters as down-and-out people who are suffering from wealth inequality, globalisation and technological disruption. The story goes that these people are quite legitimately and justifiably lashing out because they’ve been “left behind” by establishment politics.

The truth is, these people are suffering from wealth inequality, globalisation and technological disruption. But, so are all the people who didn’t vote for hate-filled liars like Trump, One Nation, and Reform.

The “hard-right voters are the forgotten people” narrative is totally dependent on the false idea that it is the left-wing parties' fault that these people are “forgotten”. This is, of course, blatantly false. These ills that we all suffer from, however we vote, including wealth inequality, globalisation destroying industries and jobs, technological disruption moving wealth into fewer and fewer hands, are not the fault of left-wing parties.

These ills are the fault of rampant capitalism, of neoliberal hegemony that exploded over the last fifty years, and the right-wing parties that promoted this global orthodoxy. Indeed, those who promote neoliberal capitalism have, of course, been the ones who have benefited most from it. Billionaires.

And guess who the hard-right movements serve? Billionaires. What a coincidence.

Perhaps Trump, One Nation and Reform voters might consider this a little silly and counterproductive on their behalf if they stopped for a moment to actually consider it. But instead of doing this, they vote for these people – weaponising their perceived victimhood – to make themselves feel better about their inequality.

Thus, they recognise they feel unequal (because they are), but rather than supporting left-wing movements that fight inequality, they instead vote to assert their own inequality — their social inequality. Their whiteness. The only privilege they have left that makes them feel worthwhile.

This is quite the opposite choice that is made by left-wing voters. Left-wing voters also recognise their own inequality and the injustice of that. They vote accordingly to try to actually address this inequality, whether that be policies like better access to education, supporting unions and wage rises, building better health systems, regulating capitalism, redistributing wealth through taxation, and addressing climate change.

Indeed, even those left-wing voters who are in a privileged position of not suffering from wealth inequality, or career disruption, or have even been the lucky few to benefit from the globalised knowledge economy. They vote the way they do because they know that when everyone in their community is better off – no matter the colour of their skin, their gender, their identity — the whole society is better off.

It is also worth noting that left-wing policies are beneficial to hard-right voters. They might not appreciate left-wing governments winning them wage rises, or investing in education, or working to make housing more affordable, or tackling climate change (which they’ve been told by their hard-right billionaire-fossil-fuel-loving-leaders is not necessary). But this doesn’t change the fact that they actually do benefit from the policies they actively vote against and celebrate being destroyed.

In sum, hard-right people vote selfishly and, in doing so, self-sabotage themselves and their communities to soothe their own insecurities. They don’t give any thought to how their vote will make other people’s lives worse. In fact, this seems to be the very point of their votes most of the time — to victimise others. From any perspective, this is bad behaviour. No child was brought up to set out to hurt others, yet we take for granted that whole movements of voters set out to do just that.

When the American empire finally collapses, historians won't be stunned by the greed of the elite; they'll be stunned by the loyalty of the poor. The working class didn't just vote against their own interests. They worshipped the billionaires robbing them. They slashed their own…

— Shawn Ryan (@ShawnRyan762) July 11, 2025

Ridiculously, they do so to their own detriment and to benefit the wealth of billionaires. Their hatred is incredibly profitable for those who are already rich, and just ends up making them worse off. Massive slow clap.

The truth of this story needs to be told to understand just how toxic it is to treat these voters like they are the victims. Because of course, Trump/One Nation/Reform voters have weaponised their own perceived victimhood to justify their attacks on those they oppose, who are the marginalised people who, low and behold, are in reality the most victimised people in the story. Whether they be non-white people, immigrants, women, LGBTIQ+ people, these are the people who should be the focus of our sympathy.

We should also sympathise with everyone suffering from the hard-right’s attacks on the environment, through dangerous-war-mongering, creating death, chaos, global instability, higher fuel prices and inflation. Through their division and undermining of democracy and social cohesion, their attacks on the social safety net, on public health, education and so on.

We’ve experienced a decade of this nonsense story framing hard-right voters as victims and I’m sick of it. This story has helped create a man-made global crisis that leaves us all worse off, all more insecure, all more victims of wealth inequality. The hard-right is a blight on humanity and their voters should be treated as the perpetrators of this mess, not as the victims of it.

The way people use their vote is a moral choice and people should not be pitied when they use their vote to deliberately harm others. When, as a society, did we forget that the perpetrators of hatred are the bad guys, and not the victims? When are we going to assert – morally - that it’s not OK to use lies and hatred as political strategies, and that people should care about their community when they vote?

If we are going to adequately fight back against the hard-right, our sympathy should not be with the deplorables who caused the mess. Our sympathies and support should go to those who are doing the right thing by everyone — fighting against the hard-right and telling the true story of who the real victims are here.

 

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. You can follow her on Threads @drvicfielding or Bluesky @drvicfielding.bsky.social.

 

]]>

The way people use their vote is a moral choice and people should not be pitied when they use their vote to deliberately harm others, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.

IT IS TIME we killed the toxic idea that people who voted for Trump, or in Australia, vote for One Nation, or in the UK, vote for Reform, are the victims of society. This notion legitimises and normalises their hatred.

This story also ignores the true victims of the devastation leaders like Trump have inflicted on the entire world; everyone who did not vote for these people is the victim, not those who selfishly and recklessly chose to put monsters in charge. We should be calling these people out for their morally bad behaviour as the perpetrators of harm rather than endorsing their choices as if they were justified.

The “hard-right voters are victims” narrative characterises these voters as down-and-out people who are suffering from wealth inequality, globalisation and technological disruption. The story goes that these people are quite legitimately and justifiably lashing out because they’ve been “left behind” by establishment politics.

The truth is, these people are suffering from wealth inequality, globalisation and technological disruption. But, so are all the people who didn’t vote for hate-filled liars like Trump, One Nation, and Reform.

The “hard-right voters are the forgotten people” narrative is totally dependent on the false idea that it is the left-wing parties' fault that these people are “forgotten”. This is, of course, blatantly false. These ills that we all suffer from, however we vote, including wealth inequality, globalisation destroying industries and jobs, technological disruption moving wealth into fewer and fewer hands, are not the fault of left-wing parties.

These ills are the fault of rampant capitalism, of neoliberal hegemony that exploded over the last fifty years, and the right-wing parties that promoted this global orthodoxy. Indeed, those who promote neoliberal capitalism have, of course, been the ones who have benefited most from it. Billionaires.

And guess who the hard-right movements serve? Billionaires. What a coincidence.

Perhaps Trump, One Nation and Reform voters might consider this a little silly and counterproductive on their behalf if they stopped for a moment to actually consider it. But instead of doing this, they vote for these people – weaponising their perceived victimhood – to make themselves feel better about their inequality.

Thus, they recognise they feel unequal (because they are), but rather than supporting left-wing movements that fight inequality, they instead vote to assert their own inequality — their social inequality. Their whiteness. The only privilege they have left that makes them feel worthwhile.

This is quite the opposite choice that is made by left-wing voters. Left-wing voters also recognise their own inequality and the injustice of that. They vote accordingly to try to actually address this inequality, whether that be policies like better access to education, supporting unions and wage rises, building better health systems, regulating capitalism, redistributing wealth through taxation, and addressing climate change.

Indeed, even those left-wing voters who are in a privileged position of not suffering from wealth inequality, or career disruption, or have even been the lucky few to benefit from the globalised knowledge economy. They vote the way they do because they know that when everyone in their community is better off – no matter the colour of their skin, their gender, their identity — the whole society is better off.

It is also worth noting that left-wing policies are beneficial to hard-right voters. They might not appreciate left-wing governments winning them wage rises, or investing in education, or working to make housing more affordable, or tackling climate change (which they’ve been told by their hard-right billionaire-fossil-fuel-loving-leaders is not necessary). But this doesn’t change the fact that they actually do benefit from the policies they actively vote against and celebrate being destroyed.

In sum, hard-right people vote selfishly and, in doing so, self-sabotage themselves and their communities to soothe their own insecurities. They don’t give any thought to how their vote will make other people’s lives worse. In fact, this seems to be the very point of their votes most of the time — to victimise others. From any perspective, this is bad behaviour. No child was brought up to set out to hurt others, yet we take for granted that whole movements of voters set out to do just that.

When the American empire finally collapses, historians won't be stunned by the greed of the elite; they'll be stunned by the loyalty of the poor. The working class didn't just vote against their own interests. They worshipped the billionaires robbing them. They slashed their own…

— Shawn Ryan (@ShawnRyan762) July 11, 2025

Ridiculously, they do so to their own detriment and to benefit the wealth of billionaires. Their hatred is incredibly profitable for those who are already rich, and just ends up making them worse off. Massive slow clap.

The truth of this story needs to be told to understand just how toxic it is to treat these voters like they are the victims. Because of course, Trump/One Nation/Reform voters have weaponised their own perceived victimhood to justify their attacks on those they oppose, who are the marginalised people who, low and behold, are in reality the most victimised people in the story. Whether they be non-white people, immigrants, women, LGBTIQ+ people, these are the people who should be the focus of our sympathy.

We should also sympathise with everyone suffering from the hard-right’s attacks on the environment, through dangerous-war-mongering, creating death, chaos, global instability, higher fuel prices and inflation. Through their division and undermining of democracy and social cohesion, their attacks on the social safety net, on public health, education and so on.

We’ve experienced a decade of this nonsense story framing hard-right voters as victims and I’m sick of it. This story has helped create a man-made global crisis that leaves us all worse off, all more insecure, all more victims of wealth inequality. The hard-right is a blight on humanity and their voters should be treated as the perpetrators of this mess, not as the victims of it.

The way people use their vote is a moral choice and people should not be pitied when they use their vote to deliberately harm others. When, as a society, did we forget that the perpetrators of hatred are the bad guys, and not the victims? When are we going to assert – morally - that it’s not OK to use lies and hatred as political strategies, and that people should care about their community when they vote?

If we are going to adequately fight back against the hard-right, our sympathy should not be with the deplorables who caused the mess. Our sympathies and support should go to those who are doing the right thing by everyone — fighting against the hard-right and telling the true story of who the real victims are here.

 

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. You can follow her on Threads @drvicfielding or Bluesky @drvicfielding.bsky.social.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hungary-turned-back--israel-cant,20924?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 14 Apr 2026 07:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hungary-turned-back--israel-cant,20924?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

With the landslide defeat of the 16-year hardline rightwing Orbán Government, Hungary now has the chance to bounce back — but Israel won't have that chance, writes Michael Cohen.

When Viktor Orbán was finally voted out, it wasn’t because Hungary somehow avoided the darker currents of modern history. It didn’t. Hungary lived through fascism, war, occupation and decades of Soviet domination. It knows what ideological capture looks like.

And yet, it came back.

That’s the point. Hungary didn’t remain balanced — it lost balance and then recovered it. It moved in a hard direction and, crucially, retained the internal capacity to reverse course.

You could always feel that possibility in Budapest. Even under Orbán, Budapest never fully internalised his worldview. It remained outward-looking, culturally European, resistant in instinct if not always in policy. It carried within it a different version of Hungary — one that never disappeared, only receded.

Eventually, that version reasserted itself.

Hungary’s strength isn’t moral purity. It’s structural elasticity. A majority culture, deeply rooted, can drift without losing access to its alternatives. It can tighten without sealing itself shut.

Israel operates very differently

Israel is not just another country moving right. It is a society shaped by an ideology that is increasingly out of step with the liberal world it exists within — and, more importantly, losing the internal conditions that might once have allowed it to correct itself.

There was a time when Jewish political life contained a real, organised internal opposition. Not just individuals with liberal views, but entire movements – socialists, Bundists, secularists – who were deeply embedded in Jewish society itself.

And they couldn’t leave.

In Eastern Europe, Jewish identity wasn’t a lifestyle choice. It was imposed. Progressive Jews might reject religion, reject nationalism, reject tradition — but they were still Jews in the eyes of the societies around them. They were, in a sense, trapped inside that identity.

That constraint created something powerful: cohesion. It forced ideological struggle to happen within Jewish society rather than outside it. If you wanted to be progressive, you had to build a Jewish progressive politics. You couldn’t dissolve into the surrounding culture.

That is no longer the case.

Today, liberal and progressive Jews – especially in the diaspora – can opt out. They can assimilate, universalise, detach from Jewish political identity altogether. And many do. Not dramatically, not as a statement, but quietly.

They don’t disappear. But their collective presence does.

What this leaves behind is not a balanced system, but an increasingly narrow one. Because those who remain most invested in a specifically Jewish political framework are, by definition, those more comfortable with nationalism, religion, or both.

And that is where the dynamic shifts from imbalance to acceleration.

Inside Israel – where Jewish society is no longer a minority but a dominant, self-contained environment – a different psychological mechanism begins to take hold. The old minority psychology – shaped by vulnerability, caution, and often a kind of forced empathy –doesn’t simply carry over intact. It flips.

Without an external majority looking in, politics becomes a closed system. Jews are no longer negotiating their place within someone else’s society. They are negotiating status among themselves.

And in that environment, a new kind of competition emerges.

Who is tougher? Who is less naïve? Who is more willing to do what is necessary?

It doesn’t stabilise — it escalates.

Empathy starts to look like weakness. Restraint looks like hesitation. Doubt looks like disloyalty. Each generation inherits a slightly harder baseline and then pushes it further. What might once have been controversial becomes normal. What was normal becomes unthinkable.

This is not just ideology. It’s a social feedback loop.

A Jewish-only or Jewish-dominant environment creates a kind of internal echo chamber where toughness becomes the primary currency of legitimacy. And because there is no strong, cohesive internal counterweight – no equivalent of a Budapest holding onto an alternative instinct – that loop intensifies unchecked.

Meanwhile, the people who might have formed that counterweight are increasingly absent. Not silenced, not imprisoned — just gone from the system. They’ve opted out, psychologically or physically. They no longer see themselves as part of the project in a way that compels them to fight for its direction.

That absence matters more than any external pressure.

Because what fills the space is not moderation. It is the only set of ideas capable of sustaining cohesion under these conditions: religious certainty and uncompromising nationalism.

And those ideas don’t moderate over time. They compound.

This is where the comparison with Hungary breaks down completely.

Hungary moved toward a more illiberal, more nationalistic form of politics — and then reversed, because it still contained within itself a viable alternative. Its internal diversity never fully collapsed. Its majority culture remained broad enough to absorb and then reject a period of hardening.

Israel does not have that structural flexibility.

The more pressure it faces, the more it leans into the very ideologies that prevent reversal. The more those ideologies dominate, the less space remains for anything else. And the less space remains, the more total that dominance becomes.

It is not a cycle. It is a ratchet.

Orbán’s defeat shows that some societies, even after going a long way down a particular path, can still step back.

Israel’s trajectory is different.

It is not just moving in one direction. It is becoming a system that can only function by continuing in that direction — more religious, more nationalistic, more absolute.

And systems like that don’t self-correct.

They don’t bend back.

They keep tightening — until the contradictions they’ve learned to live with stop being manageable at all.

Michael Cohen is a Sydney-based Jewish Australian writer who previously contributed extensively to international newspapers, offering both articles and conceptual material. He now focuses on human rights issues.

 

]]>

With the landslide defeat of the 16-year hardline rightwing Orbán Government, Hungary now has the chance to bounce back — but Israel won't have that chance, writes Michael Cohen.

When Viktor Orbán was finally voted out, it wasn’t because Hungary somehow avoided the darker currents of modern history. It didn’t. Hungary lived through fascism, war, occupation and decades of Soviet domination. It knows what ideological capture looks like.

And yet, it came back.

That’s the point. Hungary didn’t remain balanced — it lost balance and then recovered it. It moved in a hard direction and, crucially, retained the internal capacity to reverse course.

You could always feel that possibility in Budapest. Even under Orbán, Budapest never fully internalised his worldview. It remained outward-looking, culturally European, resistant in instinct if not always in policy. It carried within it a different version of Hungary — one that never disappeared, only receded.

Eventually, that version reasserted itself.

Hungary’s strength isn’t moral purity. It’s structural elasticity. A majority culture, deeply rooted, can drift without losing access to its alternatives. It can tighten without sealing itself shut.

Israel operates very differently

Israel is not just another country moving right. It is a society shaped by an ideology that is increasingly out of step with the liberal world it exists within — and, more importantly, losing the internal conditions that might once have allowed it to correct itself.

There was a time when Jewish political life contained a real, organised internal opposition. Not just individuals with liberal views, but entire movements – socialists, Bundists, secularists – who were deeply embedded in Jewish society itself.

And they couldn’t leave.

In Eastern Europe, Jewish identity wasn’t a lifestyle choice. It was imposed. Progressive Jews might reject religion, reject nationalism, reject tradition — but they were still Jews in the eyes of the societies around them. They were, in a sense, trapped inside that identity.

That constraint created something powerful: cohesion. It forced ideological struggle to happen within Jewish society rather than outside it. If you wanted to be progressive, you had to build a Jewish progressive politics. You couldn’t dissolve into the surrounding culture.

That is no longer the case.

Today, liberal and progressive Jews – especially in the diaspora – can opt out. They can assimilate, universalise, detach from Jewish political identity altogether. And many do. Not dramatically, not as a statement, but quietly.

They don’t disappear. But their collective presence does.

What this leaves behind is not a balanced system, but an increasingly narrow one. Because those who remain most invested in a specifically Jewish political framework are, by definition, those more comfortable with nationalism, religion, or both.

And that is where the dynamic shifts from imbalance to acceleration.

Inside Israel – where Jewish society is no longer a minority but a dominant, self-contained environment – a different psychological mechanism begins to take hold. The old minority psychology – shaped by vulnerability, caution, and often a kind of forced empathy –doesn’t simply carry over intact. It flips.

Without an external majority looking in, politics becomes a closed system. Jews are no longer negotiating their place within someone else’s society. They are negotiating status among themselves.

And in that environment, a new kind of competition emerges.

Who is tougher? Who is less naïve? Who is more willing to do what is necessary?

It doesn’t stabilise — it escalates.

Empathy starts to look like weakness. Restraint looks like hesitation. Doubt looks like disloyalty. Each generation inherits a slightly harder baseline and then pushes it further. What might once have been controversial becomes normal. What was normal becomes unthinkable.

This is not just ideology. It’s a social feedback loop.

A Jewish-only or Jewish-dominant environment creates a kind of internal echo chamber where toughness becomes the primary currency of legitimacy. And because there is no strong, cohesive internal counterweight – no equivalent of a Budapest holding onto an alternative instinct – that loop intensifies unchecked.

Meanwhile, the people who might have formed that counterweight are increasingly absent. Not silenced, not imprisoned — just gone from the system. They’ve opted out, psychologically or physically. They no longer see themselves as part of the project in a way that compels them to fight for its direction.

That absence matters more than any external pressure.

Because what fills the space is not moderation. It is the only set of ideas capable of sustaining cohesion under these conditions: religious certainty and uncompromising nationalism.

And those ideas don’t moderate over time. They compound.

This is where the comparison with Hungary breaks down completely.

Hungary moved toward a more illiberal, more nationalistic form of politics — and then reversed, because it still contained within itself a viable alternative. Its internal diversity never fully collapsed. Its majority culture remained broad enough to absorb and then reject a period of hardening.

Israel does not have that structural flexibility.

The more pressure it faces, the more it leans into the very ideologies that prevent reversal. The more those ideologies dominate, the less space remains for anything else. And the less space remains, the more total that dominance becomes.

It is not a cycle. It is a ratchet.

Orbán’s defeat shows that some societies, even after going a long way down a particular path, can still step back.

Israel’s trajectory is different.

It is not just moving in one direction. It is becoming a system that can only function by continuing in that direction — more religious, more nationalistic, more absolute.

And systems like that don’t self-correct.

They don’t bend back.

They keep tightening — until the contradictions they’ve learned to live with stop being manageable at all.

Michael Cohen is a Sydney-based Jewish Australian writer who previously contributed extensively to international newspapers, offering both articles and conceptual material. He now focuses on human rights issues.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-land-and-the-iran-war-path-to-madness,20905?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-land-and-the-iran-war-path-to-madness,20905?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

On Easter Sunday, Trump warned that a 'whole civilisation will die tonight' if Iran refused his latest demands.

On his own Truth Social soapbox, Trump wrote:

'There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.'

The U.S. would destroy all 'bridges and power plants' and 'bomb Iran back to the Stone Age', said the man with sole control over the nuclear codes.

Though the White House has since officially denied nuclear weapons would be employed, even Press Secretary Leavitt conceded:

“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do.”

Bombing civilian infrastructure, with or without nuclear armaments, is a war crime.

Iran, faced with the bullying demands of a crazed war monger with his fingers hovering over the nuclear codes, has agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz in return for a two-week suspension of hostilities by the United States.

Prime Minister Albanese, meanwhile, has described Trump’s latest threats as “extraordinary”. But apparently, they are not extraordinary enough for Australia to withdraw troops from an illegal war. Or exit AUKUS. Or take any independent action whatsoever against a war criminal.

The path to madness. Trump Land.

Let's examine the "extraordinary" events since this war began.

1. IRAN THE AGGRESSOR?

Listening to the mainstream media dutifully regurgitating American and Israeli talking points, you might think you misapprehended the initial circumstances and that Iran launched the first strike on Israel and/or America. And, that since then, it has launched belligerent attacks on its near neighbours, unprovoked, and has closed down the world’s petrol supply through the Straits of Hormuz.

But you are not that stupid.

No, the truth is, while Iran was negotiating a deal to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities, entirely unprovoked, America and Israel launched a sneak attack on Tehran, which assassinated Iran’s leadership, Supreme Leader, and 168 Iranians, including over 100 school children.

Israel and the U.S. calculatedly and deceptively started this war, and committed an alleged war crime under the Geneva Convention by doing so.

Shameful.

2. IRAN CLOSE TO DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

Based on the U.S. and Israeli spokespersons, you might think the reason for these strikes was that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons, thereby endangering the security of the Middle East and defying the UN IAEA inspection protocols.

Wrong.

Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. Israel, not Iran, defies UN inspections. No one knows how many bombs it has.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. But it is classified as the greatest threat in our cognitively dissonant world these days.

Wow.

3. IRAN THE GREATEST SOURCE OF TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

You would be forgiven for thinking, largely because the pundits repeat the talking points over and over again, that Iran is a rogue, terrorist state.

This is demonstrably false.

The U.S. and, especially, Israel, with its ongoing genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, are by far the greatest sources of terror in the Middle East and, with the possible exception of Russia, in the world.

Indeed, the U.S., disliking Iran’s progressive government, in 1953, staged a coup in Tehran, installing a King or Shah. (So much for the U.S. being a republic.)

This venal and corrupt U.S. puppet was deposed in a subsequent coup by the people of Iran in 1979, by a hard-line theocracy. Talk about backfiring spectacularly. This fiasco is why Iranians (and others) chant “Death to America”.

Nevertheless, Iran has never threatened its neighbours unprovoked – not Iran, not Iraq – it has merely defended itself against aggression. The U.S. and Israel, however… are you kidding?

4. ISRAEL THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

Israel is an apartheid state, which has a besieged colonial enclave and even in its nation proper, employs different rules for Palestinian Israelis (called Arabs in the system, about 20 per cent of the total population) than for the Jewish majority.

It has just passed laws to summarily hang, within 60 days of sentencing, without any recourse to appeal, lawful Palestinian combatants – what Israel calls “terrorists” – again a flagrant war crime.

5. IN AUSTRALIA, YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO OFFEND ISRAEL

…Or you’ll end up in gaol.

In Queensland, weirdly, saying “from the river to the sea”, a famous song lyric from one of Australia’s most famous vocalists, John Farnham, has been banned.

In NSW, displaying a watermelon – a watermelon – in some way, such as a design on a t-shirt, a necklace medallion, even a car sticker, is likely to get you roughed up and possibly bashed by police, under orders from Israel tour group beneficiary, Chris Minns. Minns by name, midget by nature.

Now, the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Trump's threats of complete annihilation against Iran are extraordinary indeed. Trump Land is an extraordinary path to madness, which Australia must resist.

David Donovan is the founder of Independent Australia and former vice chair of the Australian Republican Movement. Follow Dave on X/Twitter @davrosz and Bluesky @davrosz.bsky.social​​​.

Follow Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter @independentaus and Facebook HERE.

]]>

On Easter Sunday, Trump warned that a 'whole civilisation will die tonight' if Iran refused his latest demands.

On his own Truth Social soapbox, Trump wrote:

'There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.'

The U.S. would destroy all 'bridges and power plants' and 'bomb Iran back to the Stone Age', said the man with sole control over the nuclear codes.

Though the White House has since officially denied nuclear weapons would be employed, even Press Secretary Leavitt conceded:

“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do.”

Bombing civilian infrastructure, with or without nuclear armaments, is a war crime.

Iran, faced with the bullying demands of a crazed war monger with his fingers hovering over the nuclear codes, has agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz in return for a two-week suspension of hostilities by the United States.

Prime Minister Albanese, meanwhile, has described Trump’s latest threats as “extraordinary”. But apparently, they are not extraordinary enough for Australia to withdraw troops from an illegal war. Or exit AUKUS. Or take any independent action whatsoever against a war criminal.

The path to madness. Trump Land.

Let's examine the "extraordinary" events since this war began.

1. IRAN THE AGGRESSOR?

Listening to the mainstream media dutifully regurgitating American and Israeli talking points, you might think you misapprehended the initial circumstances and that Iran launched the first strike on Israel and/or America. And, that since then, it has launched belligerent attacks on its near neighbours, unprovoked, and has closed down the world’s petrol supply through the Straits of Hormuz.

But you are not that stupid.

No, the truth is, while Iran was negotiating a deal to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities, entirely unprovoked, America and Israel launched a sneak attack on Tehran, which assassinated Iran’s leadership, Supreme Leader, and 168 Iranians, including over 100 school children.

Israel and the U.S. calculatedly and deceptively started this war, and committed an alleged war crime under the Geneva Convention by doing so.

Shameful.

2. IRAN CLOSE TO DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

Based on the U.S. and Israeli spokespersons, you might think the reason for these strikes was that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons, thereby endangering the security of the Middle East and defying the UN IAEA inspection protocols.

Wrong.

Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. Israel, not Iran, defies UN inspections. No one knows how many bombs it has.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. But it is classified as the greatest threat in our cognitively dissonant world these days.

Wow.

3. IRAN THE GREATEST SOURCE OF TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

You would be forgiven for thinking, largely because the pundits repeat the talking points over and over again, that Iran is a rogue, terrorist state.

This is demonstrably false.

The U.S. and, especially, Israel, with its ongoing genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, are by far the greatest sources of terror in the Middle East and, with the possible exception of Russia, in the world.

Indeed, the U.S., disliking Iran’s progressive government, in 1953, staged a coup in Tehran, installing a King or Shah. (So much for the U.S. being a republic.)

This venal and corrupt U.S. puppet was deposed in a subsequent coup by the people of Iran in 1979, by a hard-line theocracy. Talk about backfiring spectacularly. This fiasco is why Iranians (and others) chant “Death to America”.

Nevertheless, Iran has never threatened its neighbours unprovoked – not Iran, not Iraq – it has merely defended itself against aggression. The U.S. and Israel, however… are you kidding?

4. ISRAEL THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

Israel is an apartheid state, which has a besieged colonial enclave and even in its nation proper, employs different rules for Palestinian Israelis (called Arabs in the system, about 20 per cent of the total population) than for the Jewish majority.

It has just passed laws to summarily hang, within 60 days of sentencing, without any recourse to appeal, lawful Palestinian combatants – what Israel calls “terrorists” – again a flagrant war crime.

5. IN AUSTRALIA, YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO OFFEND ISRAEL

…Or you’ll end up in gaol.

In Queensland, weirdly, saying “from the river to the sea”, a famous song lyric from one of Australia’s most famous vocalists, John Farnham, has been banned.

In NSW, displaying a watermelon – a watermelon – in some way, such as a design on a t-shirt, a necklace medallion, even a car sticker, is likely to get you roughed up and possibly bashed by police, under orders from Israel tour group beneficiary, Chris Minns. Minns by name, midget by nature.

Now, the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Trump's threats of complete annihilation against Iran are extraordinary indeed. Trump Land is an extraordinary path to madness, which Australia must resist.

David Donovan is the founder of Independent Australia and former vice chair of the Australian Republican Movement. Follow Dave on X/Twitter @davrosz and Bluesky @davrosz.bsky.social​​​.

Follow Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter @independentaus and Facebook HERE.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/austracs-tranche-2-australias-toughest-regulator-to-become-its-most-hated,20922?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/austracs-tranche-2-australias-toughest-regulator-to-become-its-most-hated,20922?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

A sweeping new compliance regime is about to land on tens of thousands of Australian small businesses; unlike the ATO or ASIC, AUSTRAC doesn't negotiate, says Dr Michael King, it detonates.

On 1 July 2026, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, conveyancers and dealers in precious metals and stones will come under AUSTRAC's regulatory umbrella for the first time, as the Tranche 2 rollout of Australia's reformed Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act takes full effect. The reforms will bring approximately 100,000 new entities into the compliance fold, most of them small and medium-sized businesses that have never dealt with a financial crime regulator in their lives.

The stated purpose is unimpeachable. Australia has long been an outlier among Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member nations in failing to regulate so-called "gatekeeper" professions: the lawyers and accountants who facilitate property transactions, manage trusts and structure corporate vehicles. Extending regulation to these sectors aligns Australia with comparable jurisdictions, where such obligations have existed for years. Few would argue with that goal.

But the way AUSTRAC enforces its mandate is a different story altogether, as tens of thousands of small firms are about to find out the hard way.

The compliance mountain

Enrolment with AUSTRAC opened 31 March 2026, with full obligations commencing 1 July 2026. Within that window, newly captured businesses must appoint a dedicated AML/CTF compliance officer, develop and document a written risk-based compliance programme, conduct initial and ongoing customer due diligence, train staff, and begin filing suspicious matter reports and certain transaction disclosures.

For more than 80,000 newly captured reporting entities, the scale of the challenge is substantial. Many are starting from scratch. A sole-practitioner conveyancer in regional Queensland, or a family-run jewellery business in suburban Perth has no compliance infrastructure, no dedicated legal team and no prior relationship with a financial crime regulator.

AUSTRAC has responded by releasing sector-specific Programme Starter Kits for small legal, conveyancing and accounting practices. AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas has publicly framed the regime as one of "risk awareness", not complexity, promising that businesses won't be expected to do it alone.

Industry bodies are considerably less sanguine. CPA Australia welcomed the intent of the reforms, but raised explicit concerns about compliance burden and the possible impact on small businesses. The ACT Law Society noted that the Law Council of Australia continues to advocate for clarity and transitional support, particularly for small legal practices. The wealth of guidance from AUSTRAC is real, but as CPA Australia observed, there is much to wade through and it is unlikely that smaller entrants will engage in earnest until starter kits are in hand.

Two regulators that know how to negotiate

To understand why AUSTRAC's expansion is alarming for small business, it helps to contrast its enforcement culture with Australia's other major regulators.

The Australian Taxation Office has spent decades building a model of graduated compliance. It offers payment plans, voluntary disclosure incentives and accessible guidance designed to bring taxpayers back into compliance rather than punish them out of existence. Its penalty regime is tiered. Mistakes are distinguished from fraud. The ATO's public posture is educational as much as enforcement-oriented.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission earned lasting criticism including from the 2019 Banking Royal Commission for a culture of negotiating rather than litigating against well-resourced defendants. ASIC's enforcement record has been patchy; its chronic underfunding has meant it must pick its battles. Critics argue it has been too cautious. But patchiness is not the charge levelled at AUSTRAC.

When the regulator does not do graduated

AUSTRAC operates on a strict liability model. Intent does not matter. A software misconfiguration causing hundreds of international fund transfer instructions to go unreported does not produce one contravention, it produces hundreds, each with its own civil penalty exposure.

The numbers are not theoretical. The Commonwealth Bank paid $700 million in 2018 after AUSTRAC applied for a civil penalty order over AML/CTF breaches involving more than 53,000 failures to report cash deposits. Westpac paid $1.3 billion in 2020 — the largest civil penalty in Australian history, after admitting to over 23 million contraventions, including failures linked to a child exploitation network. Crown paid $450 million in 2023. SkyCity Adelaide paid $67 million in 2024.

Those were institutions with armies of compliance professionals. The question now is what happens when the same penalty architecture, designed to discipline Australia's largest banks, is applied to a two-partner accounting firm that failed to properly document a client risk assessment. Under the reformed Act, civil penalties can reach up to A$33 million per contravention for a body corporate —and they compound.

Who will survive — and who won't

The honest answer is that many businesses will not survive Tranche 2 compliance. Not because they are criminals. But because the cost, complexity and liability exposure of becoming a reporting entity will simply exceed the commercial viability of their operations.

Some businesses will restructure to avoid providing designated services altogether. Others will merge into larger practices capable of absorbing compliance overhead. Many sole operators, particularly those approaching retirement age, will simply close. Regional communities, already underserved by professional services, will likely lose the most.

A cottage industry of AML compliance platforms and consultants is already forming around the Tranche 2 opportunity. But technology costs money and not every suburban conveyancer or regional jeweller has the margin to absorb a compliance platform subscription on top of a designated compliance officer and a mandatory independent audit.

The proportionality question

Australia needs to fight money laundering. Its real estate market, legal profession and accountancy sector have been identified by AUSTRAC's own regulatory priorities as genuine vectors for illicit finance. The FATF has repeatedly flagged Australia's failure to regulate gatekeeper professions and the consequences of inaction are real.

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the enforcement architecture built to punish Australia's largest banks for billions of dollars of systemic failures is an appropriate first point of contact for a regional solicitor managing rural property conveyances, or a small accountant helping family businesses with their tax structures.

The ATO and ASIC, whatever their flaws, have developed graduated enforcement cultures calibrated to the size and sophistication of the entities they regulate. AUSTRAC's penalty regime, by design, is not calibrated that way. And while the regulator's public messaging emphasises collaboration and education, its enforcement record tells a different story: when AUSTRAC moves, it moves decisively and the consequences are existential.

Whether that model transplanted wholesale from banking regulation into the world of small professional service firms produces better compliance outcomes and fewer financial criminals, or simply produces a wave of business closures and a generation of frightened professionals avoiding legitimate client work to stay off AUSTRAC's radar, will be one of the defining regulatory questions of the next two years.

And if it's the latter? AUSTRAC may well have earned the title of Australia's most hated regulator — not through malice, but through the blunt application of an instrument designed for giants, wielded against minnows.

Dr Michael King is an adjunct senior lecturer with the Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security, Charles Sturt University. His research focus is financial crime.

]]>

A sweeping new compliance regime is about to land on tens of thousands of Australian small businesses; unlike the ATO or ASIC, AUSTRAC doesn't negotiate, says Dr Michael King, it detonates.

On 1 July 2026, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, conveyancers and dealers in precious metals and stones will come under AUSTRAC's regulatory umbrella for the first time, as the Tranche 2 rollout of Australia's reformed Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act takes full effect. The reforms will bring approximately 100,000 new entities into the compliance fold, most of them small and medium-sized businesses that have never dealt with a financial crime regulator in their lives.

The stated purpose is unimpeachable. Australia has long been an outlier among Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member nations in failing to regulate so-called "gatekeeper" professions: the lawyers and accountants who facilitate property transactions, manage trusts and structure corporate vehicles. Extending regulation to these sectors aligns Australia with comparable jurisdictions, where such obligations have existed for years. Few would argue with that goal.

But the way AUSTRAC enforces its mandate is a different story altogether, as tens of thousands of small firms are about to find out the hard way.

The compliance mountain

Enrolment with AUSTRAC opened 31 March 2026, with full obligations commencing 1 July 2026. Within that window, newly captured businesses must appoint a dedicated AML/CTF compliance officer, develop and document a written risk-based compliance programme, conduct initial and ongoing customer due diligence, train staff, and begin filing suspicious matter reports and certain transaction disclosures.

For more than 80,000 newly captured reporting entities, the scale of the challenge is substantial. Many are starting from scratch. A sole-practitioner conveyancer in regional Queensland, or a family-run jewellery business in suburban Perth has no compliance infrastructure, no dedicated legal team and no prior relationship with a financial crime regulator.

AUSTRAC has responded by releasing sector-specific Programme Starter Kits for small legal, conveyancing and accounting practices. AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas has publicly framed the regime as one of "risk awareness", not complexity, promising that businesses won't be expected to do it alone.

Industry bodies are considerably less sanguine. CPA Australia welcomed the intent of the reforms, but raised explicit concerns about compliance burden and the possible impact on small businesses. The ACT Law Society noted that the Law Council of Australia continues to advocate for clarity and transitional support, particularly for small legal practices. The wealth of guidance from AUSTRAC is real, but as CPA Australia observed, there is much to wade through and it is unlikely that smaller entrants will engage in earnest until starter kits are in hand.

Two regulators that know how to negotiate

To understand why AUSTRAC's expansion is alarming for small business, it helps to contrast its enforcement culture with Australia's other major regulators.

The Australian Taxation Office has spent decades building a model of graduated compliance. It offers payment plans, voluntary disclosure incentives and accessible guidance designed to bring taxpayers back into compliance rather than punish them out of existence. Its penalty regime is tiered. Mistakes are distinguished from fraud. The ATO's public posture is educational as much as enforcement-oriented.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission earned lasting criticism including from the 2019 Banking Royal Commission for a culture of negotiating rather than litigating against well-resourced defendants. ASIC's enforcement record has been patchy; its chronic underfunding has meant it must pick its battles. Critics argue it has been too cautious. But patchiness is not the charge levelled at AUSTRAC.

When the regulator does not do graduated

AUSTRAC operates on a strict liability model. Intent does not matter. A software misconfiguration causing hundreds of international fund transfer instructions to go unreported does not produce one contravention, it produces hundreds, each with its own civil penalty exposure.

The numbers are not theoretical. The Commonwealth Bank paid $700 million in 2018 after AUSTRAC applied for a civil penalty order over AML/CTF breaches involving more than 53,000 failures to report cash deposits. Westpac paid $1.3 billion in 2020 — the largest civil penalty in Australian history, after admitting to over 23 million contraventions, including failures linked to a child exploitation network. Crown paid $450 million in 2023. SkyCity Adelaide paid $67 million in 2024.

Those were institutions with armies of compliance professionals. The question now is what happens when the same penalty architecture, designed to discipline Australia's largest banks, is applied to a two-partner accounting firm that failed to properly document a client risk assessment. Under the reformed Act, civil penalties can reach up to A$33 million per contravention for a body corporate —and they compound.

Who will survive — and who won't

The honest answer is that many businesses will not survive Tranche 2 compliance. Not because they are criminals. But because the cost, complexity and liability exposure of becoming a reporting entity will simply exceed the commercial viability of their operations.

Some businesses will restructure to avoid providing designated services altogether. Others will merge into larger practices capable of absorbing compliance overhead. Many sole operators, particularly those approaching retirement age, will simply close. Regional communities, already underserved by professional services, will likely lose the most.

A cottage industry of AML compliance platforms and consultants is already forming around the Tranche 2 opportunity. But technology costs money and not every suburban conveyancer or regional jeweller has the margin to absorb a compliance platform subscription on top of a designated compliance officer and a mandatory independent audit.

The proportionality question

Australia needs to fight money laundering. Its real estate market, legal profession and accountancy sector have been identified by AUSTRAC's own regulatory priorities as genuine vectors for illicit finance. The FATF has repeatedly flagged Australia's failure to regulate gatekeeper professions and the consequences of inaction are real.

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the enforcement architecture built to punish Australia's largest banks for billions of dollars of systemic failures is an appropriate first point of contact for a regional solicitor managing rural property conveyances, or a small accountant helping family businesses with their tax structures.

The ATO and ASIC, whatever their flaws, have developed graduated enforcement cultures calibrated to the size and sophistication of the entities they regulate. AUSTRAC's penalty regime, by design, is not calibrated that way. And while the regulator's public messaging emphasises collaboration and education, its enforcement record tells a different story: when AUSTRAC moves, it moves decisively and the consequences are existential.

Whether that model transplanted wholesale from banking regulation into the world of small professional service firms produces better compliance outcomes and fewer financial criminals, or simply produces a wave of business closures and a generation of frightened professionals avoiding legitimate client work to stay off AUSTRAC's radar, will be one of the defining regulatory questions of the next two years.

And if it's the latter? AUSTRAC may well have earned the title of Australia's most hated regulator — not through malice, but through the blunt application of an instrument designed for giants, wielded against minnows.

Dr Michael King is an adjunct senior lecturer with the Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security, Charles Sturt University. His research focus is financial crime.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/shutting-down-newsrooms-would-restore-australias-self-assurance,20921?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/shutting-down-newsrooms-would-restore-australias-self-assurance,20921?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Experiences abroad show how to heal Australia’s debilitating social malaise, reports Alan Austin.

THE ALBANESE GOVERNMENT'S freshly repaired economy is not only the best-performed in modern history, but arguably now the best in the world. That’s based on the four key outcomes recently updated by the Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Statistics.

Yet just as these impressive numbers were released, the boffins at ANZ-Roy Morgan warned that consumer confidence has hit an all-time low.

What is going on?

Australia’s global ascendancy

We saw here last week that for the first time since records have been kept, Australia achieved these excellent results throughout 2025 via:

• jobless rate below 4.5%;
• inflation below 4.0%;
• interest rates within the band 3.0% to 5.0%; and
• annual GDP growth above 2.5%.

Global data confirms that no other developed Western nation achieved those outcomes last year. The only economies that did, besides Australia, were Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East and Vietnam.

There were 16 nations which achieved three of those four outcomes. These included powerhouses Norway, Denmark, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. The rest of the world managed two, one or none.

Disturbingly, five advanced OECD members achieved none of those four desired outcomes: Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Slovakia and the United States.

Where Australia outclasses Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE and Vietnam are in higher GDP per capita, much more wealth per adult, and triple-A credit ratings with all agencies.

Australia also leads the world – or is very close to – on superannuation savings, budget management and political stability. It is also, surprisingly, setting a cracking pace on sustainable tourism.

We could, of course, consider other variables, including debt to GDP, national savings, business profitability and the Gini coefficient. So ultimately, the world’s best economy is subjective. By any criteria, however, Australia is at or near the summit.

Media messages matter

Many observers, including this column, are dismayed that, while Australians now enjoy their highest living standards ever, they remain miserable and depressed. The latest world happiness rankings showed Australians tumbled from tenth last year to 15^th this year. Intriguingly, Iceland, which achieved none of the four ideal outcomes, ranked second in the world on contentment.

Finland, the happiest country for the ninth straight year, ended 2025 with the jobless at 9.8%, annual GDP growth at 0.1% and public debt blown out to 89% of GDP. Disastrous!

Headlines in both those countries bolster the thesis advanced previously: that newsrooms in Australia instruct citizens to remain morose and pessimistic, while elsewhere they do not.

Despite Iceland’s dreadful recession-plagued economy, its media remained resolutely upbeat, with headlines like:

• ‘Boom­ing invest­ment a key driver of robust GDP growth’ (Íslandsbanki, 2 June 2025);
• ‘IMF: Economic outlook generally positive’ (RUV, 26 June 2025);
• ‘Bank: inflation figures “good news” for households’ (RUV, 28 November 2025); and
• ‘2025: decent GDP growth in a chal­len­ging envir­on­ment’ (Íslandsbanki, 27 February, 2026)

So did Finland’s. Closer to home, New Zealand achieved just one of the four optimum outcomes last year. It succeeded with inflation below 4.0%, but had its jobless rate rise to 5.4% and suffered poor GDP growth.

As with Iceland, Finland and most of the developed world, New Zealand’s media remained generally cheerful with headlines such as: 

• ‘Nicola Willis is right: NZ's economy isn't as bad as the "merchants of misery" claim’ (The Post, 5 October 2025);
• ‘Five reasons to feel positive about the New Zealand economy’ (RNZ, 10 October 2025); and
• ‘Economic recovery gathers pace, from the south up’ (New Zealand Herald, 20 November, 2025).

Constant falsehoods drive pessimism

The insidious influence of the liars in Australia’s newsrooms is shown starkly in year-end reportage of the New Zealand and Australian economies.

Annual growth for the December quarter across the Tasman was just 1.3%. This was historically weak, and well below the OECD average of 1.76%.

Kiwi newsrooms, however, saw no cause for anxiety, running with headlines like:

• ‘Tepid GDP growth a disappointment, but many indus­tries boun­cing back’ (Waikato Times, 19 March 2026);
• ‘New Zealand GDP Turns Positive in Q4 2025 After Three-Quarter Slump’ (Forex News, 19 March 2026); and
• ‘New Zealand’s GDP Growth Slowed, Giving The RBNZ More Wiggle Room’ (Finimize, 19 March 2026).

Australia’s annual growth of 2.65% through 2025 was much better than New Zealand’s — and, in fact, stronger than almost everywhere.

But according to the newsrooms, we may as well all swallow a bottle of pills, then leap from high windows and slash our wrists on the way down.

The following headlines stated:

• ‘Rate hike warning: Strong economy means more pain for homeowners’ (Daily Telegraph, 4 March 2026);
• ‘Australia's economy grows 2.6 per cent but productivity remains flat in December quarter, adding to inflation worries’ (Sky News, 4 March 2026);
• ‘Rising profit margins turbocharged Australia’s latest inflation figures – but something worse is just around the corner’ (The Guardian, 26 March 2026); and
• ‘Greatest stagflation risk in the 21st century: economists’ (Australian Financial Review, 1 April 2026).

Finding a way forward

The national broadcaster is another offender with destructive distortions broadcast frequently by “journalists” who should know better, leading with:

• ‘The cost of taming inflation could be crashing the economy, says HSBC economist’ (ABC News, 16 March 2026);
• ‘Stagflation is about to push unemployment higher’ (ABC News, 26 March 2026); and
• ‘The government says it is “situation normal” but are we already in a recession?’ (ABC News, 1 April 2026).

Australia’s economy is not crashing and is nowhere near a recession. Good grief!

So for Australia to recover its former robust self-confidence, the liars in the commercial newsrooms must be boycotted out of existence.

ABC News might also be shut down and that money spent on... oh, I don’t know... sustainable tourism?

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001.

]]>

Experiences abroad show how to heal Australia’s debilitating social malaise, reports Alan Austin.

THE ALBANESE GOVERNMENT'S freshly repaired economy is not only the best-performed in modern history, but arguably now the best in the world. That’s based on the four key outcomes recently updated by the Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Statistics.

Yet just as these impressive numbers were released, the boffins at ANZ-Roy Morgan warned that consumer confidence has hit an all-time low.

What is going on?

Australia’s global ascendancy

We saw here last week that for the first time since records have been kept, Australia achieved these excellent results throughout 2025 via:

• jobless rate below 4.5%;
• inflation below 4.0%;
• interest rates within the band 3.0% to 5.0%; and
• annual GDP growth above 2.5%.

Global data confirms that no other developed Western nation achieved those outcomes last year. The only economies that did, besides Australia, were Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East and Vietnam.

There were 16 nations which achieved three of those four outcomes. These included powerhouses Norway, Denmark, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. The rest of the world managed two, one or none.

Disturbingly, five advanced OECD members achieved none of those four desired outcomes: Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Slovakia and the United States.

Where Australia outclasses Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE and Vietnam are in higher GDP per capita, much more wealth per adult, and triple-A credit ratings with all agencies.

Australia also leads the world – or is very close to – on superannuation savings, budget management and political stability. It is also, surprisingly, setting a cracking pace on sustainable tourism.

We could, of course, consider other variables, including debt to GDP, national savings, business profitability and the Gini coefficient. So ultimately, the world’s best economy is subjective. By any criteria, however, Australia is at or near the summit.

Media messages matter

Many observers, including this column, are dismayed that, while Australians now enjoy their highest living standards ever, they remain miserable and depressed. The latest world happiness rankings showed Australians tumbled from tenth last year to 15^th this year. Intriguingly, Iceland, which achieved none of the four ideal outcomes, ranked second in the world on contentment.

Finland, the happiest country for the ninth straight year, ended 2025 with the jobless at 9.8%, annual GDP growth at 0.1% and public debt blown out to 89% of GDP. Disastrous!

Headlines in both those countries bolster the thesis advanced previously: that newsrooms in Australia instruct citizens to remain morose and pessimistic, while elsewhere they do not.

Despite Iceland’s dreadful recession-plagued economy, its media remained resolutely upbeat, with headlines like:

• ‘Boom­ing invest­ment a key driver of robust GDP growth’ (Íslandsbanki, 2 June 2025);
• ‘IMF: Economic outlook generally positive’ (RUV, 26 June 2025);
• ‘Bank: inflation figures “good news” for households’ (RUV, 28 November 2025); and
• ‘2025: decent GDP growth in a chal­len­ging envir­on­ment’ (Íslandsbanki, 27 February, 2026)

So did Finland’s. Closer to home, New Zealand achieved just one of the four optimum outcomes last year. It succeeded with inflation below 4.0%, but had its jobless rate rise to 5.4% and suffered poor GDP growth.

As with Iceland, Finland and most of the developed world, New Zealand’s media remained generally cheerful with headlines such as: 

• ‘Nicola Willis is right: NZ's economy isn't as bad as the "merchants of misery" claim’ (The Post, 5 October 2025);
• ‘Five reasons to feel positive about the New Zealand economy’ (RNZ, 10 October 2025); and
• ‘Economic recovery gathers pace, from the south up’ (New Zealand Herald, 20 November, 2025).

Constant falsehoods drive pessimism

The insidious influence of the liars in Australia’s newsrooms is shown starkly in year-end reportage of the New Zealand and Australian economies.

Annual growth for the December quarter across the Tasman was just 1.3%. This was historically weak, and well below the OECD average of 1.76%.

Kiwi newsrooms, however, saw no cause for anxiety, running with headlines like:

• ‘Tepid GDP growth a disappointment, but many indus­tries boun­cing back’ (Waikato Times, 19 March 2026);
• ‘New Zealand GDP Turns Positive in Q4 2025 After Three-Quarter Slump’ (Forex News, 19 March 2026); and
• ‘New Zealand’s GDP Growth Slowed, Giving The RBNZ More Wiggle Room’ (Finimize, 19 March 2026).

Australia’s annual growth of 2.65% through 2025 was much better than New Zealand’s — and, in fact, stronger than almost everywhere.

But according to the newsrooms, we may as well all swallow a bottle of pills, then leap from high windows and slash our wrists on the way down.

The following headlines stated:

• ‘Rate hike warning: Strong economy means more pain for homeowners’ (Daily Telegraph, 4 March 2026);
• ‘Australia's economy grows 2.6 per cent but productivity remains flat in December quarter, adding to inflation worries’ (Sky News, 4 March 2026);
• ‘Rising profit margins turbocharged Australia’s latest inflation figures – but something worse is just around the corner’ (The Guardian, 26 March 2026); and
• ‘Greatest stagflation risk in the 21st century: economists’ (Australian Financial Review, 1 April 2026).

Finding a way forward

The national broadcaster is another offender with destructive distortions broadcast frequently by “journalists” who should know better, leading with:

• ‘The cost of taming inflation could be crashing the economy, says HSBC economist’ (ABC News, 16 March 2026);
• ‘Stagflation is about to push unemployment higher’ (ABC News, 26 March 2026); and
• ‘The government says it is “situation normal” but are we already in a recession?’ (ABC News, 1 April 2026).

Australia’s economy is not crashing and is nowhere near a recession. Good grief!

So for Australia to recover its former robust self-confidence, the liars in the commercial newsrooms must be boycotted out of existence.

ABC News might also be shut down and that money spent on... oh, I don’t know... sustainable tourism?

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/war-on-cash-gets-the-nod-after-cash-led-coalition-backflip,20915?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 11 Apr 2026 12:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/war-on-cash-gets-the-nod-after-cash-led-coalition-backflip,20915?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Cash mandate regulations, which will make it harder to use cash, look set to go ahead after a Michaelia Cash-led Coalition backflip in the Senate, writes Dale Webster.

ON 24 MARCH, in a stunning act of betrayal, the Liberal and National parties have back-flipped on a commitment made in the Senate just seven days earlier and voted with Labor to scuttle a motion that would have relegated the Government’s problematic cash mandate regulations to history.

Instead, a legal instrument that falls well short of community expectations, does nothing to help the majority of regional Australia and even has the potential to accelerate the demise of cash, remains in place.

One Nation, the Greens, Independent David Pocock, United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet and Liberal Alex Antic, who crossed the floor to vote for the motion, all agreed Australia was better off without these flawed regulations than with them.

However, despite Liberal Senator Slade Brockman setting out the reasons the Coalition would support a disallowance motion put by One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts on 24 March, Senator Michaelia Cash stood up last Tuesday and, speaking for both the Liberals and National parties, ridiculed the proposal and accused One Nation of trying to “ban cash”.

It was the same line used by Labor senators who engaged in filibustering on the previous Tuesday to time out the debate when One Nation had the numbers to pass the motion.

The vote was lost 28 to 17.

Tasmanian Independent Tammy Tyrrell sided with the Government.

Senator Cash, most of her Liberal colleagues and all the Nationals, including Leader Matt Canavan, disappeared from the Chamber before the vote was held, leaving Labor with the majority.

Understanding the motion

Far from wanting to “ban cash” as Labor and Senator Cash mischievously claimed during the debate, One Nation lodged the disallowance motion in response to calls from cash advocates.

Why were it cash advocates calling for the mandate to be scrapped and not retailers?

Because the retail lobby had pulled off a very sweet deal.

The cherry on the top was that the immediate effect of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes — Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 (introduced on 1 January 2026, without the decision having been taken to parliament) was to remove responsibility for refusing cash from retailers.

As Senator Roberts argued, “Instead of having to front their customers and explain why they no longer accept cash, they can simply blame the government”.

Retailers are also happy because the regulations only apply to a minuscule cohort of businesses and come with exceptional circumstance clauses that will exempt even more.

How minuscule is this cohort?

Let’s unpack it.

A “cash guarantee” being sought by cash advocates would protect the right of Australians to pay for all goods and services with physical currency. This includes all retailers and key service areas, including healthcare, utilities, transport and telecommunications.

The Government’s cash mandate only covers goods.

Of goods, it covers just groceries and fuel.

Of groceries and fuel, it covers just those purchased from big businesses earning more than $10 million per year.

As of June 2024, only 1.9% of Australian businesses fell into this bracket (50,854 businesses), and of these, just 562 were supermarkets and grocery stores and 502 fuel retailers (2.09% of 1.9%).

This equates to 0.04% of all Australian businesses being covered by these regulations.

That is before exemptions are factored in.

Treasury confirmed in Senate Estimates in December that supermarkets and fuel retailers that would otherwise have to comply with the regulations could be eligible for exceptional circumstances exemptions if located in an area without banking services.

The greatest impact of this will be felt across regional Australia’s banking deserts.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, 2.3 million people – 9.7% of the population – were living in just over 1700 “small” (under 10,000 people) towns at the time of the 2016 Census.

Just under 700 of these towns have never had a bank; another 600 have lost all banks, meaning that less than a quarter of towns with populations under 10,000 will be offered any protections by the cash mandate. (In case you are wondering about Bank@post, those seeking exemptions will be quick to point out that cash access through post offices is not a guaranteed service and is unreliable.)

Many of the supermarkets and fuel retailers that successfully apply for an exemption due to the cost of maintaining cash service in towns without a bank will come out of the 0.04% of businesses covered by the regulations.

That leaves all service providers and less than 99.96% of retailers being able to tell consumers that the government has exempted them from having to accept cash. (Including all retailers in most Aboriginal communities.)

This will have a cascading effect.

Any business refusing to take cash payments contributes to the erosion of cash access (everything that makes a cash economy work, including cash transit) and takes Australia closer to being cashless, a state that is almost impossible to find a way back from, as Sweden is discovering.

The disallowance motion recognised that no mandate at all would be better than the situation we have been left with.

The betrayal

When the disallowance motion was put to the Senate on March 24, Senator Brockman stated the Coalition would be supporting it on the grounds that Labor’s regulations had been hatched in secrecy, fell short of international standards and did not respond to critical issues highlighted in the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures.

When Senator Cash took up the debate a week later, she spoke as if she either didn’t understand the details of the issue or didn’t care.

The Coalition had clearly sold its vote in the interim and Senator Cash had become a mouthpiece for the Government, unleashing a spectacular display of gaslighting as she claimed, exactly as Labor’s Corinne Mulholland had the week before, to be defending the “1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80% of their in-person transactions”.

It may have had a bit more credibility had she not been pulling clown faces and smirking at someone sitting in the Government side of the house as she spoke.

When Senator Cash resumed her seat, instead of turning to her colleagues, she looked straight to the Government side of the House again, gave a namaste gesture of thanks, mouthed a few words and began to giggle.

Senator Cash offered no reason for the broken promise but did flag that the Liberals and Nationals would be putting up a private senator’s bill to address the issue.

This signalled that the backflip was more to do with politics and not wanting to be seen supporting One Nation, which has been eclipsing the Coalition in opinion polls, than a genuine desire to help the ordinary Australian.

Greens Senator Nick McKim said the proposed Bill was just a ruse to let the Government "off the hook":

We all know what's going to happen there. If it's a decently drafted bill … it will get through the Senate, and do you know what's going to happen then? It's going to go down into the House, and it's going to die a miserable, lonely death down there. It will never be brought on for debate, because the Government has the numbers down there, so it will never become law.

 

What you could have done was vote for this disallowance today and force the Government back to the table to bring in an appropriate mandate on cash, one that was far more broad in scope than the one that they're currently proposing … that’s why the Government has been let off the hook.

 

Senator Cash can spare the chamber her crocodile tears and handwringing about cash, because the very reason that cash is not going to be mandated for things like data, communication services and energy bills is that the Liberals backed down and squibbed it today.

Dale Webster was named the Walkley Foundation’s 2022 Freelance Journalist of the Year and a Melbourne Press Club Quill Award winner. She writes extensively on banking and cash, and her research was the trigger for the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures in 2023. This article was originally published on The Regional and has been republished with permission. 

]]>

Cash mandate regulations, which will make it harder to use cash, look set to go ahead after a Michaelia Cash-led Coalition backflip in the Senate, writes Dale Webster.

ON 24 MARCH, in a stunning act of betrayal, the Liberal and National parties have back-flipped on a commitment made in the Senate just seven days earlier and voted with Labor to scuttle a motion that would have relegated the Government’s problematic cash mandate regulations to history.

Instead, a legal instrument that falls well short of community expectations, does nothing to help the majority of regional Australia and even has the potential to accelerate the demise of cash, remains in place.

One Nation, the Greens, Independent David Pocock, United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet and Liberal Alex Antic, who crossed the floor to vote for the motion, all agreed Australia was better off without these flawed regulations than with them.

However, despite Liberal Senator Slade Brockman setting out the reasons the Coalition would support a disallowance motion put by One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts on 24 March, Senator Michaelia Cash stood up last Tuesday and, speaking for both the Liberals and National parties, ridiculed the proposal and accused One Nation of trying to “ban cash”.

It was the same line used by Labor senators who engaged in filibustering on the previous Tuesday to time out the debate when One Nation had the numbers to pass the motion.

The vote was lost 28 to 17.

Tasmanian Independent Tammy Tyrrell sided with the Government.

Senator Cash, most of her Liberal colleagues and all the Nationals, including Leader Matt Canavan, disappeared from the Chamber before the vote was held, leaving Labor with the majority.

Understanding the motion

Far from wanting to “ban cash” as Labor and Senator Cash mischievously claimed during the debate, One Nation lodged the disallowance motion in response to calls from cash advocates.

Why were it cash advocates calling for the mandate to be scrapped and not retailers?

Because the retail lobby had pulled off a very sweet deal.

The cherry on the top was that the immediate effect of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes — Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 (introduced on 1 January 2026, without the decision having been taken to parliament) was to remove responsibility for refusing cash from retailers.

As Senator Roberts argued, “Instead of having to front their customers and explain why they no longer accept cash, they can simply blame the government”.

Retailers are also happy because the regulations only apply to a minuscule cohort of businesses and come with exceptional circumstance clauses that will exempt even more.

How minuscule is this cohort?

Let’s unpack it.

A “cash guarantee” being sought by cash advocates would protect the right of Australians to pay for all goods and services with physical currency. This includes all retailers and key service areas, including healthcare, utilities, transport and telecommunications.

The Government’s cash mandate only covers goods.

Of goods, it covers just groceries and fuel.

Of groceries and fuel, it covers just those purchased from big businesses earning more than $10 million per year.

As of June 2024, only 1.9% of Australian businesses fell into this bracket (50,854 businesses), and of these, just 562 were supermarkets and grocery stores and 502 fuel retailers (2.09% of 1.9%).

This equates to 0.04% of all Australian businesses being covered by these regulations.

That is before exemptions are factored in.

Treasury confirmed in Senate Estimates in December that supermarkets and fuel retailers that would otherwise have to comply with the regulations could be eligible for exceptional circumstances exemptions if located in an area without banking services.

The greatest impact of this will be felt across regional Australia’s banking deserts.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, 2.3 million people – 9.7% of the population – were living in just over 1700 “small” (under 10,000 people) towns at the time of the 2016 Census.

Just under 700 of these towns have never had a bank; another 600 have lost all banks, meaning that less than a quarter of towns with populations under 10,000 will be offered any protections by the cash mandate. (In case you are wondering about Bank@post, those seeking exemptions will be quick to point out that cash access through post offices is not a guaranteed service and is unreliable.)

Many of the supermarkets and fuel retailers that successfully apply for an exemption due to the cost of maintaining cash service in towns without a bank will come out of the 0.04% of businesses covered by the regulations.

That leaves all service providers and less than 99.96% of retailers being able to tell consumers that the government has exempted them from having to accept cash. (Including all retailers in most Aboriginal communities.)

This will have a cascading effect.

Any business refusing to take cash payments contributes to the erosion of cash access (everything that makes a cash economy work, including cash transit) and takes Australia closer to being cashless, a state that is almost impossible to find a way back from, as Sweden is discovering.

The disallowance motion recognised that no mandate at all would be better than the situation we have been left with.

The betrayal

When the disallowance motion was put to the Senate on March 24, Senator Brockman stated the Coalition would be supporting it on the grounds that Labor’s regulations had been hatched in secrecy, fell short of international standards and did not respond to critical issues highlighted in the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures.

When Senator Cash took up the debate a week later, she spoke as if she either didn’t understand the details of the issue or didn’t care.

The Coalition had clearly sold its vote in the interim and Senator Cash had become a mouthpiece for the Government, unleashing a spectacular display of gaslighting as she claimed, exactly as Labor’s Corinne Mulholland had the week before, to be defending the “1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80% of their in-person transactions”.

It may have had a bit more credibility had she not been pulling clown faces and smirking at someone sitting in the Government side of the house as she spoke.

When Senator Cash resumed her seat, instead of turning to her colleagues, she looked straight to the Government side of the House again, gave a namaste gesture of thanks, mouthed a few words and began to giggle.

Senator Cash offered no reason for the broken promise but did flag that the Liberals and Nationals would be putting up a private senator’s bill to address the issue.

This signalled that the backflip was more to do with politics and not wanting to be seen supporting One Nation, which has been eclipsing the Coalition in opinion polls, than a genuine desire to help the ordinary Australian.

Greens Senator Nick McKim said the proposed Bill was just a ruse to let the Government "off the hook":

We all know what's going to happen there. If it's a decently drafted bill … it will get through the Senate, and do you know what's going to happen then? It's going to go down into the House, and it's going to die a miserable, lonely death down there. It will never be brought on for debate, because the Government has the numbers down there, so it will never become law.

 

What you could have done was vote for this disallowance today and force the Government back to the table to bring in an appropriate mandate on cash, one that was far more broad in scope than the one that they're currently proposing … that’s why the Government has been let off the hook.

 

Senator Cash can spare the chamber her crocodile tears and handwringing about cash, because the very reason that cash is not going to be mandated for things like data, communication services and energy bills is that the Liberals backed down and squibbed it today.

Dale Webster was named the Walkley Foundation’s 2022 Freelance Journalist of the Year and a Melbourne Press Club Quill Award winner. She writes extensively on banking and cash, and her research was the trigger for the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures in 2023. This article was originally published on The Regional and has been republished with permission. 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/a-phoenix-from-the-ashes-caveat-crucifix-denies-bushfire,20918?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sun, 12 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/a-phoenix-from-the-ashes-caveat-crucifix-denies-bushfire,20918?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

A symbol of the resurrection rises like a phoenix from the ashes of a burnt-out church in Caveat, Victoria.

Our Lady of Seven Sorrows Church in Victoria’s central north was gutted by the January 2026 bushfires — only its giant crucifix and bell tower were left standing. 

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]>

A symbol of the resurrection rises like a phoenix from the ashes of a burnt-out church in Caveat, Victoria.

Our Lady of Seven Sorrows Church in Victoria’s central north was gutted by the January 2026 bushfires — only its giant crucifix and bell tower were left standing. 

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/cashless-loopholes-treasury-confirms-exemptions-for-bankless-towns,20453?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 05 Dec 2025 11:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/cashless-loopholes-treasury-confirms-exemptions-for-bankless-towns,20453?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Major supermarkets and fuel retailers in bankless towns may qualify for exemptions from the Government’s proposed cash mandate, sparking fresh concerns about regional access to cash. Dale Webster reports.

MAJOR-BRAND supermarkets and fuel retailers in bankless towns could be eligible for exemptions from the Federal Government’s proposed cash mandate regulations under exceptional circumstances provisions, an official from Treasury confirmed today during Senate Estimates hearings.

The information was obtained by West Australian Senator Tyron Whitten in a series of questions about regional banking services.

Senator Whitten asked:

“If a location where are supermarket or fuel outlet is located doesn’t have a bank branch or reliable financial institution to obtain cash floats or deposit business takings, will this be considered an exceptional circumstance?”

“It could be,” first assistant secretary of the Financial System Division Lynn Kelly replied.

Ms Kelly said the draft regulations contained no definition of exceptional circumstances and each application would be looked at on a case-by-case basis by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

After acknowledging that poor access to cash services could be grounds for an exceptional circumstances exemption, Ms Kelly was quick to add that the Government was looking at a workaround:

There is another piece of work that the Council of Financial Regulators has been undertaking around a cash regulatory framework and a big underlying driver for that piece of work is to ensure affordable access to cash around Australia.

 

The two need to fit together.

Senator Whitten continued:

An example was in Queenstown in Tasmania, where a local petrol station began refusing to take cash payments about two years ago and the town recently lost its last bank. The post office has been unable to keep up with demand for cash, frequently having to put out calls on social media begging for change — the town running out of cash made national news.

 

Would a major brand of supermarket or service station in a town experiencing issues such as this be granted an exception from the legislation under exceptional circumstances?

Ms Kelly returned to a solution outside the cash mandate proposal:

“Again, that would be something for the regulator to consider; however, the cash regulatory framework that the Council of Financial Regulators has been working on has been looking at how to ensure there is affordable access to cash and some of the features that have been consulted on are service-level standards for regional Australia.”

No further information on the cash regulatory framework was provided, or a timeline for its introduction given.  

Senator Whitten’s questioning also revealed that while the final report into the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures remains ignored with no official government response after more than 18 months of it being tabled, the Government has been working directly with the major banks to come up with its own initiatives in place of the eight recommendations made by the Senate committee.

Whitten asked:

“If there is no mandate for banks to provide cash services out in the regions, how could the cash mandate be effective for regional communities?”

Ms Kelly said:

We have been working very actively with the banks in relation to regional banking services and how to shore them up.

 

We’ve also been actively working with banks on how they will lean back into regional banking services.

Ms Kelly said Treasury was involved with the recent Westpac announcement to work with councils to put some banking services back into regional communities, a scheme that Regional Banking Alliance spokesman David Heine has criticised for separating “the profitable part of banking from the social contract of providing real branch services”.

Ms Kelly took notice of a request to provide the summary of advice the Treasury provided to the Government on the recommendations from the Senate inquiry into regional bank closures.

Dale Webster is an inaugural recipient of a Walkley Foundation Grant for Freelance Journalism on Regional Australia. This article was originally published on The Regional and has been republished with permission. You can follow Dale on Twitter @TheRegional_au.

]]>

Major supermarkets and fuel retailers in bankless towns may qualify for exemptions from the Government’s proposed cash mandate, sparking fresh concerns about regional access to cash. Dale Webster reports.

MAJOR-BRAND supermarkets and fuel retailers in bankless towns could be eligible for exemptions from the Federal Government’s proposed cash mandate regulations under exceptional circumstances provisions, an official from Treasury confirmed today during Senate Estimates hearings.

The information was obtained by West Australian Senator Tyron Whitten in a series of questions about regional banking services.

Senator Whitten asked:

“If a location where are supermarket or fuel outlet is located doesn’t have a bank branch or reliable financial institution to obtain cash floats or deposit business takings, will this be considered an exceptional circumstance?”

“It could be,” first assistant secretary of the Financial System Division Lynn Kelly replied.

Ms Kelly said the draft regulations contained no definition of exceptional circumstances and each application would be looked at on a case-by-case basis by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

After acknowledging that poor access to cash services could be grounds for an exceptional circumstances exemption, Ms Kelly was quick to add that the Government was looking at a workaround:

There is another piece of work that the Council of Financial Regulators has been undertaking around a cash regulatory framework and a big underlying driver for that piece of work is to ensure affordable access to cash around Australia.

 

The two need to fit together.

Senator Whitten continued:

An example was in Queenstown in Tasmania, where a local petrol station began refusing to take cash payments about two years ago and the town recently lost its last bank. The post office has been unable to keep up with demand for cash, frequently having to put out calls on social media begging for change — the town running out of cash made national news.

 

Would a major brand of supermarket or service station in a town experiencing issues such as this be granted an exception from the legislation under exceptional circumstances?

Ms Kelly returned to a solution outside the cash mandate proposal:

“Again, that would be something for the regulator to consider; however, the cash regulatory framework that the Council of Financial Regulators has been working on has been looking at how to ensure there is affordable access to cash and some of the features that have been consulted on are service-level standards for regional Australia.”

No further information on the cash regulatory framework was provided, or a timeline for its introduction given.  

Senator Whitten’s questioning also revealed that while the final report into the Senate Inquiry into regional bank closures remains ignored with no official government response after more than 18 months of it being tabled, the Government has been working directly with the major banks to come up with its own initiatives in place of the eight recommendations made by the Senate committee.

Whitten asked:

“If there is no mandate for banks to provide cash services out in the regions, how could the cash mandate be effective for regional communities?”

Ms Kelly said:

We have been working very actively with the banks in relation to regional banking services and how to shore them up.

 

We’ve also been actively working with banks on how they will lean back into regional banking services.

Ms Kelly said Treasury was involved with the recent Westpac announcement to work with councils to put some banking services back into regional communities, a scheme that Regional Banking Alliance spokesman David Heine has criticised for separating “the profitable part of banking from the social contract of providing real branch services”.

Ms Kelly took notice of a request to provide the summary of advice the Treasury provided to the Government on the recommendations from the Senate inquiry into regional bank closures.

Dale Webster is an inaugural recipient of a Walkley Foundation Grant for Freelance Journalism on Regional Australia. This article was originally published on The Regional and has been republished with permission. You can follow Dale on Twitter @TheRegional_au.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/becoming-the-next-muhammad-ali-or-prime-mike-tyson-aint-hard,20917?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/becoming-the-next-muhammad-ali-or-prime-mike-tyson-aint-hard,20917?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Becoming a great boxer isn’t about copying flashy moves or chasing hype. Boxing greatness is built in training, diet, consistency and the absence of complacency. Aliyu Solomon considers what makes greats.

Greatness starts with discipline, not talent

People often talk about Muhammad Ali as if his greatness was magic. It wasn’t. It was discipline. Ali was obsessed with movement, timing and repetition. His fast footwork wasn’t an accident. It came from endless roadwork, skipping and drills that sharpened speed and balance long before fight night.

Ali trained as if every fight depended on it, because to him, it did. He didn’t wait for motivation. Training was the job.

Mike Tyson’s weapon was his mind

If Ali ruled with speed, Mike Tyson ruled with mindset. Tyson entered the ring already convinced the fight was over. His goal wasn’t survival, it was dominance. He accepted pain as part of victory.  

Tyson wasn’t fearless because he felt nothing. He was fearless because he had trained his mind to push forward regardless of what came at him. That mental conditioning was drilled into him daily, long before the crowd showed up.

Modern fighters still prove the same rules

Today’s elite fighters show the same pattern. Champions like Oleksandr Usyk and Terence Crawford are not just skilled, they are consistent. They train even after winning. They return to the gym when the applause fades.

Boxing, like all elite sports, punishes complacency

Diet, weight and the silent enemy of success

One of the fastest ways fighters fall off is poor discipline after a win. Some fighters relax their diet, gain unnecessary weight and lose sharpness. When they return to the ring, their timing is gone and their legs are slow.

Training isn’t just punches. It’s food choices, sleep, recovery, and listening to a coach who prioritises long-term success over short-term comfort.

This problem isn’t unique to boxing. It appears across combat sports, including MMA and UFC, where fighters return after long breaks only to be knocked out.

Why becoming the next great boxer isn’t hard

Hard work is hard, but the formula is simple:

1. Train even after you win
2. Stay disciplined with food and conditioning
3. Keep a coach who challenges you
4. Never treat success as the end

The fighters who stay on top are not the most gifted. They are the most consistent.

Becoming the next Ali or Tyson isn’t about copying their style. It’s about copying their habits.

Conclusion

Greatness in boxing is not mysterious. It is earned daily. Legends are built in quiet gyms, early mornings, controlled diets and relentless repetition. The ring only reveals what discipline has already prepared.

Independent Australia has often highlighted how systems reward consistency over hype, whether in sport, politics, or public life. Boxing is no different.

Winning once is easy. Staying ready is the real fight.

Aliyu Solomon is a computer scientist and writer whose work has appeared on platforms such as Mamamia.

]]>

Becoming a great boxer isn’t about copying flashy moves or chasing hype. Boxing greatness is built in training, diet, consistency and the absence of complacency. Aliyu Solomon considers what makes greats.

Greatness starts with discipline, not talent

People often talk about Muhammad Ali as if his greatness was magic. It wasn’t. It was discipline. Ali was obsessed with movement, timing and repetition. His fast footwork wasn’t an accident. It came from endless roadwork, skipping and drills that sharpened speed and balance long before fight night.

Ali trained as if every fight depended on it, because to him, it did. He didn’t wait for motivation. Training was the job.

Mike Tyson’s weapon was his mind

If Ali ruled with speed, Mike Tyson ruled with mindset. Tyson entered the ring already convinced the fight was over. His goal wasn’t survival, it was dominance. He accepted pain as part of victory.  

Tyson wasn’t fearless because he felt nothing. He was fearless because he had trained his mind to push forward regardless of what came at him. That mental conditioning was drilled into him daily, long before the crowd showed up.

Modern fighters still prove the same rules

Today’s elite fighters show the same pattern. Champions like Oleksandr Usyk and Terence Crawford are not just skilled, they are consistent. They train even after winning. They return to the gym when the applause fades.

Boxing, like all elite sports, punishes complacency

Diet, weight and the silent enemy of success

One of the fastest ways fighters fall off is poor discipline after a win. Some fighters relax their diet, gain unnecessary weight and lose sharpness. When they return to the ring, their timing is gone and their legs are slow.

Training isn’t just punches. It’s food choices, sleep, recovery, and listening to a coach who prioritises long-term success over short-term comfort.

This problem isn’t unique to boxing. It appears across combat sports, including MMA and UFC, where fighters return after long breaks only to be knocked out.

Why becoming the next great boxer isn’t hard

Hard work is hard, but the formula is simple:

1. Train even after you win
2. Stay disciplined with food and conditioning
3. Keep a coach who challenges you
4. Never treat success as the end

The fighters who stay on top are not the most gifted. They are the most consistent.

Becoming the next Ali or Tyson isn’t about copying their style. It’s about copying their habits.

Conclusion

Greatness in boxing is not mysterious. It is earned daily. Legends are built in quiet gyms, early mornings, controlled diets and relentless repetition. The ring only reveals what discipline has already prepared.

Independent Australia has often highlighted how systems reward consistency over hype, whether in sport, politics, or public life. Boxing is no different.

Winning once is easy. Staying ready is the real fight.

Aliyu Solomon is a computer scientist and writer whose work has appeared on platforms such as Mamamia.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-smart-entrepreneurs-checklist-finance-legal-and-personal-brand,20916?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 10 Apr 2026 21:40:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-smart-entrepreneurs-checklist-finance-legal-and-personal-brand,20916?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Starting a business in Australia is more accessible than it has ever been. The barriers to registering a company, building an online presence and reaching customers have dropped considerably over the past decade.

What has not changed is the complexity underneath that accessibility: the financial structures, legal obligations and professional presentation decisions that determine whether a business survives its first few years or becomes part of the approximately 60 per cent of Australian small businesses that close within their first three years.

The entrepreneurs who navigate the early phase well tend not to be those with the most capital or the most disruptive idea. They are those who make informed decisions early about the areas that trip up their peers later: how they finance growth; how they protect themselves legally; and how they show up professionally in front of clients, partners, and investors.

This checklist covers the three areas most often underestimated by first-time business owners, with practical guidance on what to get right before the stakes get higher.

Finance: Getting the capital structure right from the start

Undercapitalisation is one of the most common causes of early business failure in Australia. Entrepreneurs frequently underestimate both the upfront costs of establishing a business and the working capital required to sustain it through the period before revenue becomes reliable.

The instinct for many first-time business owners is to use personal savings as the primary funding source and avoid borrowing until absolutely necessary. This is understandable, but it often results in a business that is chronically underfunded, unable to invest in the growth activities that would accelerate profitability and vulnerable to any unexpected expense that would otherwise be manageable.

Commercial lending exists specifically to address this gap, and the range of products available to Australian businesses has expanded considerably in recent years. Term loans, asset finance, equipment finance, invoice financing, and business lines of credit each serve different funding needs and carry different cost and risk profiles. Matching the right product to the specific use case is the difference between debt that accelerates growth and debt that drains cash flow.

Working directly with a broker who specialises in business lending rather than approaching individual lenders independently gives business owners access to a broader market and better negotiating position.

Those looking to understand what is available can explore commercial loans across a range of structures designed for businesses at different stages, and with different asset bases, from startup funding through to property acquisition and equipment financing for established operators.

One area frequently overlooked in early financial planning is the distinction between personal and business credit. Building a separate credit profile for the business from the outset, through a dedicated business bank account, a business credit card used and paid consistently, and supplier accounts in the business name, creates a financial track record that makes future lending more accessible and on better terms.

Cash flow management: The variable that kills profitable businesses

Many businesses that fail are not unprofitable. They are cash-flow insolvent, meaning they cannot meet their obligations when they fall due even though the underlying business model is sound.

The gap between when revenue is earned and when it is received is where businesses get into trouble. A business that invoices on 30-day terms but pays its own suppliers and staff weekly is constantly funding a timing gap from its own reserves. When those reserves are thin, a single slow payment from a major client can create a cascading problem that is difficult to recover from.

Addressing this requires both structural and behavioural changes. Structurally, the payment terms built into client contracts should be as short as the market and relationship will allow. Forty-five and sixty-day terms, accepted without negotiation because they are presented as standard, represent a significant concession that costs more than most business owners calculate.

Behaviourally, invoicing immediately upon delivery of work or goods, following up on overdue accounts on the first day they are late rather than weeks afterward, and building a cash buffer equivalent to at least two months of fixed costs are habits that meaningfully reduce cash flow risk.

Invoice financing and business lines of credit are financial tools specifically designed to bridge the gap when structural changes are not enough. Understanding how these products work and having them in place before a cash flow crisis occurs, rather than applying during one, is the approach that keeps options open when they are most needed.

Legal: The obligations that catch entrepreneurs off guard

Legal compliance is the area where entrepreneurs most consistently underinvest until a problem forces the issue. The instinct to delay legal expenditure in the early phase is financially understandable but carries risks that are disproportionate to the cost of the documents and processes that would have prevented them.

Business structures affect tax liability, asset protection, and the ability to bring in investors or partners. Choosing a structure, whether sole trader, partnership, company, or trust, based on what is simplest to set up rather than what suits the business model and risk profile is a common mistake that is expensive to correct later.

Contracts with clients, suppliers, contractors, and employees define the terms of every commercial relationship. Operating on verbal agreements or informal email exchanges leaves both parties exposed to disputes that are difficult and costly to resolve without clear documented terms. Having a qualified solicitor draft or review core contracts is not a luxury. It is risk management that typically costs a fraction of the disputes it prevents.

For businesses operating internationally, acquiring property in foreign jurisdictions, or dealing with legal documents that must be recognised across borders, notarised documentation is often a requirement that businesses encounter without warning.

A trusted public notary provides the formal authentication of documents that meets the legal requirements of foreign courts, government bodies, and commercial institutions, covering everything from apostille certification for international business agreements to the notarisation of powers of attorney and statutory declarations. Having clarity about where to access this service before it is urgently needed removes significant friction at critical moments.

Intellectual property protection is another area that receives insufficient attention early in the business lifecycle. A business's brand, including its trading name, logo, and any proprietary processes or content, has commercial value that can be protected through trademark registration and other IP mechanisms. Discovering that a trading name is already registered by another business, or that a competitor has copied proprietary content without legal consequence because the IP was never formalised, are expensive lessons that a modest upfront investment in IP advice would have prevented.

Personal brand: The professional variable that compounds

Every business owner is simultaneously the brand of their business, particularly in the early phase when the business does not yet have the reputation, team, or institutional credibility to stand independently of its founder.

How an entrepreneur presents themselves in meetings, on their website, in pitch decks, and across their professional networks shapes how their business is perceived by potential clients, partners, investors, and employees. This is not a superficial concern. The quality of relationships a business can attract at its early stage is substantially determined by the credibility and professionalism the founder projects.

This extends beyond communication skills and professional attire into the physical presentation details that, while individually minor, collectively signal whether someone takes themselves and their business seriously. Hair, grooming, and overall presentation are part of that signal.

The foundation that supports growth

The areas covered in this checklist are not the most exciting parts of building a business. The finance structure, the legal compliance, and the personal presentation decisions do not generate the same energy as a product launch or a major client win.

But they are the foundation that either holds when those exciting moments arrive or gives way under the pressure they bring. Entrepreneurs who build this foundation deliberately, early, and with appropriate professional guidance consistently outperform those who address it reactively.

The checklist approach is useful precisely because it creates space for deliberate thinking before the demands of daily operation fill every available hour. Reviewing where you stand across finance, legal, and personal brand at regular intervals, at minimum annually, and adjusting as the business grows, ensures that the foundation continues to serve the business rather than constraining it.

The businesses that succeed long term are built by people who take all of it seriously, not just the parts that feel most urgent in any given week.

]]>

Starting a business in Australia is more accessible than it has ever been. The barriers to registering a company, building an online presence and reaching customers have dropped considerably over the past decade.

What has not changed is the complexity underneath that accessibility: the financial structures, legal obligations and professional presentation decisions that determine whether a business survives its first few years or becomes part of the approximately 60 per cent of Australian small businesses that close within their first three years.

The entrepreneurs who navigate the early phase well tend not to be those with the most capital or the most disruptive idea. They are those who make informed decisions early about the areas that trip up their peers later: how they finance growth; how they protect themselves legally; and how they show up professionally in front of clients, partners, and investors.

This checklist covers the three areas most often underestimated by first-time business owners, with practical guidance on what to get right before the stakes get higher.

Finance: Getting the capital structure right from the start

Undercapitalisation is one of the most common causes of early business failure in Australia. Entrepreneurs frequently underestimate both the upfront costs of establishing a business and the working capital required to sustain it through the period before revenue becomes reliable.

The instinct for many first-time business owners is to use personal savings as the primary funding source and avoid borrowing until absolutely necessary. This is understandable, but it often results in a business that is chronically underfunded, unable to invest in the growth activities that would accelerate profitability and vulnerable to any unexpected expense that would otherwise be manageable.

Commercial lending exists specifically to address this gap, and the range of products available to Australian businesses has expanded considerably in recent years. Term loans, asset finance, equipment finance, invoice financing, and business lines of credit each serve different funding needs and carry different cost and risk profiles. Matching the right product to the specific use case is the difference between debt that accelerates growth and debt that drains cash flow.

Working directly with a broker who specialises in business lending rather than approaching individual lenders independently gives business owners access to a broader market and better negotiating position.

Those looking to understand what is available can explore commercial loans across a range of structures designed for businesses at different stages, and with different asset bases, from startup funding through to property acquisition and equipment financing for established operators.

One area frequently overlooked in early financial planning is the distinction between personal and business credit. Building a separate credit profile for the business from the outset, through a dedicated business bank account, a business credit card used and paid consistently, and supplier accounts in the business name, creates a financial track record that makes future lending more accessible and on better terms.

Cash flow management: The variable that kills profitable businesses

Many businesses that fail are not unprofitable. They are cash-flow insolvent, meaning they cannot meet their obligations when they fall due even though the underlying business model is sound.

The gap between when revenue is earned and when it is received is where businesses get into trouble. A business that invoices on 30-day terms but pays its own suppliers and staff weekly is constantly funding a timing gap from its own reserves. When those reserves are thin, a single slow payment from a major client can create a cascading problem that is difficult to recover from.

Addressing this requires both structural and behavioural changes. Structurally, the payment terms built into client contracts should be as short as the market and relationship will allow. Forty-five and sixty-day terms, accepted without negotiation because they are presented as standard, represent a significant concession that costs more than most business owners calculate.

Behaviourally, invoicing immediately upon delivery of work or goods, following up on overdue accounts on the first day they are late rather than weeks afterward, and building a cash buffer equivalent to at least two months of fixed costs are habits that meaningfully reduce cash flow risk.

Invoice financing and business lines of credit are financial tools specifically designed to bridge the gap when structural changes are not enough. Understanding how these products work and having them in place before a cash flow crisis occurs, rather than applying during one, is the approach that keeps options open when they are most needed.

Legal: The obligations that catch entrepreneurs off guard

Legal compliance is the area where entrepreneurs most consistently underinvest until a problem forces the issue. The instinct to delay legal expenditure in the early phase is financially understandable but carries risks that are disproportionate to the cost of the documents and processes that would have prevented them.

Business structures affect tax liability, asset protection, and the ability to bring in investors or partners. Choosing a structure, whether sole trader, partnership, company, or trust, based on what is simplest to set up rather than what suits the business model and risk profile is a common mistake that is expensive to correct later.

Contracts with clients, suppliers, contractors, and employees define the terms of every commercial relationship. Operating on verbal agreements or informal email exchanges leaves both parties exposed to disputes that are difficult and costly to resolve without clear documented terms. Having a qualified solicitor draft or review core contracts is not a luxury. It is risk management that typically costs a fraction of the disputes it prevents.

For businesses operating internationally, acquiring property in foreign jurisdictions, or dealing with legal documents that must be recognised across borders, notarised documentation is often a requirement that businesses encounter without warning.

A trusted public notary provides the formal authentication of documents that meets the legal requirements of foreign courts, government bodies, and commercial institutions, covering everything from apostille certification for international business agreements to the notarisation of powers of attorney and statutory declarations. Having clarity about where to access this service before it is urgently needed removes significant friction at critical moments.

Intellectual property protection is another area that receives insufficient attention early in the business lifecycle. A business's brand, including its trading name, logo, and any proprietary processes or content, has commercial value that can be protected through trademark registration and other IP mechanisms. Discovering that a trading name is already registered by another business, or that a competitor has copied proprietary content without legal consequence because the IP was never formalised, are expensive lessons that a modest upfront investment in IP advice would have prevented.

Personal brand: The professional variable that compounds

Every business owner is simultaneously the brand of their business, particularly in the early phase when the business does not yet have the reputation, team, or institutional credibility to stand independently of its founder.

How an entrepreneur presents themselves in meetings, on their website, in pitch decks, and across their professional networks shapes how their business is perceived by potential clients, partners, investors, and employees. This is not a superficial concern. The quality of relationships a business can attract at its early stage is substantially determined by the credibility and professionalism the founder projects.

This extends beyond communication skills and professional attire into the physical presentation details that, while individually minor, collectively signal whether someone takes themselves and their business seriously. Hair, grooming, and overall presentation are part of that signal.

The foundation that supports growth

The areas covered in this checklist are not the most exciting parts of building a business. The finance structure, the legal compliance, and the personal presentation decisions do not generate the same energy as a product launch or a major client win.

But they are the foundation that either holds when those exciting moments arrive or gives way under the pressure they bring. Entrepreneurs who build this foundation deliberately, early, and with appropriate professional guidance consistently outperform those who address it reactively.

The checklist approach is useful precisely because it creates space for deliberate thinking before the demands of daily operation fill every available hour. Reviewing where you stand across finance, legal, and personal brand at regular intervals, at minimum annually, and adjusting as the business grows, ensures that the foundation continues to serve the business rather than constraining it.

The businesses that succeed long term are built by people who take all of it seriously, not just the parts that feel most urgent in any given week.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hasties-break-with-neoliberalism-puts-business-on-notice,20914?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hasties-break-with-neoliberalism-puts-business-on-notice,20914?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

With Liberal leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie expressing openly challenging "neoliberalism", which has anchored Coalition politics for decades, the political protection business once enjoyed can no longer be taken for granted, writes Professor Carl Rhodes.

OPPOSITION LEADER Angus Taylor seemed guarded. Appearing on Sky News last week, he was repeatedly pressed by host Andrew Clennell about his relationship with Liberal colleague and possible leadership rival, Opposition industry spokesperson Andrew Hastie.

“Is he [Hastie] after your job?” Clennell asked. Taylor laughed, then pivoted to tax, housing, and oil and gas.

Clennell did not let go. “But is he after your job?” he repeated. Taylor laughed again. Eventually, he responded without really answering. “Andrew and I are good friends and have been for a long while.”

The question lingered because, only weeks earlier, Hastie had openly challenged "neoliberalism", the worldview that has anchored Coalition politics and its relationship with business for decades.

The consequences of that challenge remain unclear, but the business sector is on notice that the political protection it once enjoyed can no longer be taken for granted.

#Angus_Taylor rebukes #Andrew_Hastie for call for #Libs to be ‘open-minded’ on tax rises and property concessions

The split comes as some MPs raise the prospect of a new conversation about the party’s leadershiphttps://t.co/h7ZWhGAI9M

— Nes Evan 🌏 (@NesEvan9) March 31, 2026

Hastie breaks rank

Things had been brewing since Andrew Hastie spoke on ABC Insiders on Sunday 29 March.

Asked about his support for windfall taxes on gas exports, Hastie said:

“The Liberal Party is not the first line of defence for corporate Australia. Multinationals and big business in this country have lost their social licence.”

He went further, adding:

“No one’s going to reward us for a final last stand for neo-Liberal politics. There’s no medal for that.”  

The next day, Taylor shut him down stating unequivocally that increasing taxes was opposed to the “long-standing understanding of the economics profession in the Liberal Party”.

Neoliberalism is rarely named by conservative politicians, let alone something they bicker about in public. It is, however, the doctrine the Coalition – and the Liberal Party in particular – has long championed.

It was embraced enthusiastically under John Howard’s government from the late 1990s, through market liberalisation, industrial relations reform, privatisation of state enterprises, financial deregulation and significant reductions in corporate taxation.

Neoliberalism is also the word traditionally used by the Left to criticise this policy agenda, particularly the inequality it fuelled by shifting power, income, and security away from labour and towards capital.

On the face of it, Hastie’s language overlaps with elements of that critique, for example when he says that “a lot of Australians feel like the system is rigged against them” and that “we’re experiencing a lot of economic pain” as the global order fractures.

Opinion | When Andrew Hastie says the Liberals are too wedded to neoliberalism, he actually seems to believe it. https://t.co/vPs1aLo0tj

— Crikey (@crikey_news) April 7, 2026

The Liberals’ old deal is cracking

Hastie’s point is not a progressive one. It is a pragmatic acknowledgement that the Right will be punished if it is seen as defending a system more and more people experience as unfair.

His clash with party orthodoxy is not a left turn. It does, however, signal a shift in the issues now cutting across the political spectrum. Economic malaise is spreading as housing is unaffordable for many, cost‑of‑living pressures are intensifying and younger Australians increasingly believe they will be worse off than their parents.

The neoliberal order has lost credibility, even among those who once backed it without reservation. It may previously have seemed self‑evident that investment, growth and shareholder value would flow through to all Australians. That faith has been eroded by inequality, wage stagnation and repeated episodes of corporate misconduct.

That the Liberal Party is now debating neoliberalism, however clumsily, is a sign that something fundamental has shifted. The economic settlement that once aligned markets, business, and political legitimacy no longer commands automatic consent.

If that settlement changes, it will shape not only the party’s future but the conditions under which business is judged to serve the public good. That assessment is unfolding in real time.

Business is on notice

Behind this moment in the news cycle lies a deeper shift in public expectations of business itself. Corporations are no longer assessed solely on their ability to generate growth, investment, or shareholder returns.

When inequality is at levels not seen for decades and when conservative politicians begin withdrawing automatic support for business, it is a sign of just how far the system has frayed. Business is increasingly judged by whether it contributes to economic fairness, through responsible practices, paying tax and providing secure well‑paid work.

Scrutiny can be expected on everything from super‑profits and resource rent to wage theft, insecure work, market power and price‑setting and the political influence that comes with concentrated wealth.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor sought to distance himself from former leader Peter Dutton, but promised many of the same economic policies in a pitch to business. https://t.co/WWFoJV2YdO

— Financial Review (@FinancialReview) March 3, 2026

That figures on the conservative side of politics are now framing issues in these terms highlights the depth of the problem.

For business leaders, the implications are stark. They must reckon with the political and social consequences of an economic model that has delivered prosperity for some while leaving many others excluded, insecure, and unheard. Failure to adapt risks leaving corporate leaders politically isolated, defended by a shrinking circle of allies, but stripped of broader legitimacy.

The challenge for corporate Australia is no longer how to protect markets from politics, but how to act credibly in the national interest, recognising that economic power carries civic responsibility and that long‑term legitimacy depends on more than growth alone.

If business cannot be credibly seen to be contributing to the public good, it will not just face pressure from the Left. It will face it from everywhere.

Carl Rhodes is Professor of Business and Society at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has written several books on the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism. You can follow him on X/Twitter @ProfCarlRhodes.

]]>

With Liberal leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie expressing openly challenging "neoliberalism", which has anchored Coalition politics for decades, the political protection business once enjoyed can no longer be taken for granted, writes Professor Carl Rhodes.

OPPOSITION LEADER Angus Taylor seemed guarded. Appearing on Sky News last week, he was repeatedly pressed by host Andrew Clennell about his relationship with Liberal colleague and possible leadership rival, Opposition industry spokesperson Andrew Hastie.

“Is he [Hastie] after your job?” Clennell asked. Taylor laughed, then pivoted to tax, housing, and oil and gas.

Clennell did not let go. “But is he after your job?” he repeated. Taylor laughed again. Eventually, he responded without really answering. “Andrew and I are good friends and have been for a long while.”

The question lingered because, only weeks earlier, Hastie had openly challenged "neoliberalism", the worldview that has anchored Coalition politics and its relationship with business for decades.

The consequences of that challenge remain unclear, but the business sector is on notice that the political protection it once enjoyed can no longer be taken for granted.

#Angus_Taylor rebukes #Andrew_Hastie for call for #Libs to be ‘open-minded’ on tax rises and property concessions

The split comes as some MPs raise the prospect of a new conversation about the party’s leadershiphttps://t.co/h7ZWhGAI9M

— Nes Evan 🌏 (@NesEvan9) March 31, 2026

Hastie breaks rank

Things had been brewing since Andrew Hastie spoke on ABC Insiders on Sunday 29 March.

Asked about his support for windfall taxes on gas exports, Hastie said:

“The Liberal Party is not the first line of defence for corporate Australia. Multinationals and big business in this country have lost their social licence.”

He went further, adding:

“No one’s going to reward us for a final last stand for neo-Liberal politics. There’s no medal for that.”  

The next day, Taylor shut him down stating unequivocally that increasing taxes was opposed to the “long-standing understanding of the economics profession in the Liberal Party”.

Neoliberalism is rarely named by conservative politicians, let alone something they bicker about in public. It is, however, the doctrine the Coalition – and the Liberal Party in particular – has long championed.

It was embraced enthusiastically under John Howard’s government from the late 1990s, through market liberalisation, industrial relations reform, privatisation of state enterprises, financial deregulation and significant reductions in corporate taxation.

Neoliberalism is also the word traditionally used by the Left to criticise this policy agenda, particularly the inequality it fuelled by shifting power, income, and security away from labour and towards capital.

On the face of it, Hastie’s language overlaps with elements of that critique, for example when he says that “a lot of Australians feel like the system is rigged against them” and that “we’re experiencing a lot of economic pain” as the global order fractures.

Opinion | When Andrew Hastie says the Liberals are too wedded to neoliberalism, he actually seems to believe it. https://t.co/vPs1aLo0tj

— Crikey (@crikey_news) April 7, 2026

The Liberals’ old deal is cracking

Hastie’s point is not a progressive one. It is a pragmatic acknowledgement that the Right will be punished if it is seen as defending a system more and more people experience as unfair.

His clash with party orthodoxy is not a left turn. It does, however, signal a shift in the issues now cutting across the political spectrum. Economic malaise is spreading as housing is unaffordable for many, cost‑of‑living pressures are intensifying and younger Australians increasingly believe they will be worse off than their parents.

The neoliberal order has lost credibility, even among those who once backed it without reservation. It may previously have seemed self‑evident that investment, growth and shareholder value would flow through to all Australians. That faith has been eroded by inequality, wage stagnation and repeated episodes of corporate misconduct.

That the Liberal Party is now debating neoliberalism, however clumsily, is a sign that something fundamental has shifted. The economic settlement that once aligned markets, business, and political legitimacy no longer commands automatic consent.

If that settlement changes, it will shape not only the party’s future but the conditions under which business is judged to serve the public good. That assessment is unfolding in real time.

Business is on notice

Behind this moment in the news cycle lies a deeper shift in public expectations of business itself. Corporations are no longer assessed solely on their ability to generate growth, investment, or shareholder returns.

When inequality is at levels not seen for decades and when conservative politicians begin withdrawing automatic support for business, it is a sign of just how far the system has frayed. Business is increasingly judged by whether it contributes to economic fairness, through responsible practices, paying tax and providing secure well‑paid work.

Scrutiny can be expected on everything from super‑profits and resource rent to wage theft, insecure work, market power and price‑setting and the political influence that comes with concentrated wealth.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor sought to distance himself from former leader Peter Dutton, but promised many of the same economic policies in a pitch to business. https://t.co/WWFoJV2YdO

— Financial Review (@FinancialReview) March 3, 2026

That figures on the conservative side of politics are now framing issues in these terms highlights the depth of the problem.

For business leaders, the implications are stark. They must reckon with the political and social consequences of an economic model that has delivered prosperity for some while leaving many others excluded, insecure, and unheard. Failure to adapt risks leaving corporate leaders politically isolated, defended by a shrinking circle of allies, but stripped of broader legitimacy.

The challenge for corporate Australia is no longer how to protect markets from politics, but how to act credibly in the national interest, recognising that economic power carries civic responsibility and that long‑term legitimacy depends on more than growth alone.

If business cannot be credibly seen to be contributing to the public good, it will not just face pressure from the Left. It will face it from everywhere.

Carl Rhodes is Professor of Business and Society at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has written several books on the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism. You can follow him on X/Twitter @ProfCarlRhodes.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/waning-world-order-ethics-in-the-age-of-great-power-politics,20910?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/waning-world-order-ethics-in-the-age-of-great-power-politics,20910?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict has illustrated a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. Great power politics are driving this international shift, which demands an ethical amnesty framework, writes Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf. 

THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM is undergoing a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. This shift is driven largely by the conduct of major powers, particularly the United States and Israel, in their ongoing confrontation with Iran.

Increasingly, these actors prioritise national interests, strategic dominance, and security imperatives over shared global norms and legal frameworks. This pattern undermines the legitimacy of international institutions and signals to smaller states that adherence to global rules is optional rather than obligatory.

This transformation reflects not only a structural shift but also a deeper normative crisis. Core principles such as justice, legality and multilateralism are increasingly subordinated to strategic expediency. The ongoing conflict exemplifies this trend and has evolved into an existential struggle for all three actors in their perspective.

For Israel, it concerns long-term security; for Iran, continuity of ideo-political legacy and regional influence; and for the United States, credibility, deterrence and global leadership.

Yet, the conflict also exposes the limits of U.S. power. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the United States has been unable to end the confrontation decisively. Iran’s reliance on asymmetric warfare, regional alliances, and retaliatory capabilities has imposed significant political and economic costs, suggesting that power alone is no longer sufficient to determine outcomes.

At its core, the conflict is rooted in deep structural causes: longstanding hostility, ideological rivalry, nuclear tensions and competition for regional dominance. These underlying dynamics create a volatile environment triggered by military escalation, leading to a cycle of retaliation.

What began as a limited confrontation has expanded into a broader regional crisis affecting global energy markets and trade routes, particularly through strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.

The persistence of the conflict highlights the gap between theoretical foreign policy frameworks and real-world decision-making. While democratic theory emphasises institutional oversight, in practice, foreign policy is often dominated by executive leadership. Strategic perceptions, psychological factors and threat assessments play decisive roles, reinforcing the idea that leadership responses to structural pressures shape outcomes more than formal institutions.

From an ethical perspective, the conflict raises serious concerns. "Just war theory" evaluates war based on just cause, proportionality and last resort, providing a useful framework. While preemptive security concerns may be invoked as justification, the scale of destruction and civilian suffering raises doubts about proportionality. Moreover, continued hostilities despite diplomatic alternatives suggest that the principle of last resort has not been fully satisfied.

A utilitarian perspective further challenges the conflict’s legitimacy. The war has resulted in significant loss of life, regional instability and global economic disruption. Energy price volatility and threats to trade routes have amplified global consequences — indicating that the overall harm outweighs potential benefits.

Similarly, a deontological approach, which emphasises moral duties, highlights violations of sovereignty and civilian protections. Preemptive strikes and strategic targeting raise serious concerns about compliance with international law, including the principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions.

The conflict also underscores the enduring tension between realism and idealism in international relations. Realism posits that power and national interest dominate current behaviour, while idealist principles such as cooperation and collective security are increasingly marginalised. This imbalance weakens global governance and creates a permissive environment for further deviations from established norms.

Several interrelated problems emerge. First, the concentration of foreign policy decision-making in executive leadership limits accountability and encourages unilateral action. Second, the failure of preventive diplomacy has allowed tensions to escalate into open conflict. Third, ethical considerations – particularly civilian protection – are often sidelined in favour of strategic objectives. This creates an escalation spiral in which each action provokes retaliation, further destabilising the region.

Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive and ethically grounded response. Diplomacy must be re-centred as the primary tool of conflict resolution, supported by renewed commitment to multilateral engagement. Ethical restraint in warfare, especially adherence to proportionality and civilian protection, must be reinforced.

Equally important is strengthening institutional oversight to balance executive decision-making. Long-term stability depends on addressing root causes such as security dilemmas, regional rivalries and economic inequalities.

Ultimately, the conflict is not merely geopolitical but a test of moral responsibility in international politics. While realism may explain state behaviour, it does not justify the consequences. Without renewed commitment to shared values and ethical leadership, the international system risks further fragmentation and instability.

Findings and strategic implications

The current impasse appears shaped less by structural constraints than by political calculations of key leaders. For instance, leadership considerations in the United States may require a credible face-saving pathway to support de-escalation. One possible narrative emphasises that traditional allies remain fundamentally aligned with the United States, even when disagreeing with specific policies. Such framing could preserve credibility while enabling a shift toward diplomacy.

At the same time, the potential involvement of NATO or other nuclear-armed states significantly increases the risk of escalation. In such a scenario, attribution of responsibility for any nuclear use would become highly contested, creating dangerous ambiguity. This uncertainty could trigger a self-reinforcing escalation dynamic, heightening the risk of catastrophic outcomes.

“Ought” rather than “is”: An ethical amnesty framework

Historically, wars tend to end through two pathways. First, when the cumulative human and economic costs become unsustainable. Second, when leaders are provided with face-saving exit options that preserve their legitimacy. In the present conflict, despite high costs, both sides remain entrenched, suggesting that a dignified exit mechanism is essential.

An innovative approach would involve the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, invoking Article 99 of the UN Charter, which allows independent action to address threats to international peace. This could form the basis for a formal appeal for an immediate ceasefire, similar to the global ceasefire call made during COVID-19 in 2020.

Proposed framework

1. Immediate ceasefire: A clear and unconditional call for cessation of hostilities to halt further losses.

 

2. High-level committee: A representative body including major and regional powers, along with independent legal experts, tasked with reaching a binding resolution without veto constraints.

 

3. Interim Strait of Hormuz arrangement: An agreement ensuring continued maritime access, potentially with regulated transit mechanisms, to stabilise global energy flows.

 

4. Durable settlement plan: A UN-mandated framework addressing compensation, security guarantees and long-term conflict prevention, potentially ratified by the UN General Assembly.

This structured approach balances immediate de-escalation with a pathway toward sustainable peace. By providing a face-saving mechanism for all parties, it increases the likelihood of compliance while restoring confidence in international law.

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict represents a critical juncture in global politics. It reflects not only shifting power dynamics but also a deeper erosion of ethical commitment in international relations. Without renewed emphasis on diplomacy, legal norms and moral responsibility, the global order risks descending into a system where power consistently overrides principle.

A carefully framed initiative grounded in ethical pragmatism and institutional authority offers a viable path forward. Such an approach could not only end the current conflict but also contribute to rebuilding a more just and stable international order.

 

Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf is an associate professor and executive director of HYIERI Australia.

 

 

]]>

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict has illustrated a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. Great power politics are driving this international shift, which demands an ethical amnesty framework, writes Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf. 

THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM is undergoing a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. This shift is driven largely by the conduct of major powers, particularly the United States and Israel, in their ongoing confrontation with Iran.

Increasingly, these actors prioritise national interests, strategic dominance, and security imperatives over shared global norms and legal frameworks. This pattern undermines the legitimacy of international institutions and signals to smaller states that adherence to global rules is optional rather than obligatory.

This transformation reflects not only a structural shift but also a deeper normative crisis. Core principles such as justice, legality and multilateralism are increasingly subordinated to strategic expediency. The ongoing conflict exemplifies this trend and has evolved into an existential struggle for all three actors in their perspective.

For Israel, it concerns long-term security; for Iran, continuity of ideo-political legacy and regional influence; and for the United States, credibility, deterrence and global leadership.

Yet, the conflict also exposes the limits of U.S. power. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the United States has been unable to end the confrontation decisively. Iran’s reliance on asymmetric warfare, regional alliances, and retaliatory capabilities has imposed significant political and economic costs, suggesting that power alone is no longer sufficient to determine outcomes.

At its core, the conflict is rooted in deep structural causes: longstanding hostility, ideological rivalry, nuclear tensions and competition for regional dominance. These underlying dynamics create a volatile environment triggered by military escalation, leading to a cycle of retaliation.

What began as a limited confrontation has expanded into a broader regional crisis affecting global energy markets and trade routes, particularly through strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.

The persistence of the conflict highlights the gap between theoretical foreign policy frameworks and real-world decision-making. While democratic theory emphasises institutional oversight, in practice, foreign policy is often dominated by executive leadership. Strategic perceptions, psychological factors and threat assessments play decisive roles, reinforcing the idea that leadership responses to structural pressures shape outcomes more than formal institutions.

From an ethical perspective, the conflict raises serious concerns. "Just war theory" evaluates war based on just cause, proportionality and last resort, providing a useful framework. While preemptive security concerns may be invoked as justification, the scale of destruction and civilian suffering raises doubts about proportionality. Moreover, continued hostilities despite diplomatic alternatives suggest that the principle of last resort has not been fully satisfied.

A utilitarian perspective further challenges the conflict’s legitimacy. The war has resulted in significant loss of life, regional instability and global economic disruption. Energy price volatility and threats to trade routes have amplified global consequences — indicating that the overall harm outweighs potential benefits.

Similarly, a deontological approach, which emphasises moral duties, highlights violations of sovereignty and civilian protections. Preemptive strikes and strategic targeting raise serious concerns about compliance with international law, including the principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions.

The conflict also underscores the enduring tension between realism and idealism in international relations. Realism posits that power and national interest dominate current behaviour, while idealist principles such as cooperation and collective security are increasingly marginalised. This imbalance weakens global governance and creates a permissive environment for further deviations from established norms.

Several interrelated problems emerge. First, the concentration of foreign policy decision-making in executive leadership limits accountability and encourages unilateral action. Second, the failure of preventive diplomacy has allowed tensions to escalate into open conflict. Third, ethical considerations – particularly civilian protection – are often sidelined in favour of strategic objectives. This creates an escalation spiral in which each action provokes retaliation, further destabilising the region.

Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive and ethically grounded response. Diplomacy must be re-centred as the primary tool of conflict resolution, supported by renewed commitment to multilateral engagement. Ethical restraint in warfare, especially adherence to proportionality and civilian protection, must be reinforced.

Equally important is strengthening institutional oversight to balance executive decision-making. Long-term stability depends on addressing root causes such as security dilemmas, regional rivalries and economic inequalities.

Ultimately, the conflict is not merely geopolitical but a test of moral responsibility in international politics. While realism may explain state behaviour, it does not justify the consequences. Without renewed commitment to shared values and ethical leadership, the international system risks further fragmentation and instability.

Findings and strategic implications

The current impasse appears shaped less by structural constraints than by political calculations of key leaders. For instance, leadership considerations in the United States may require a credible face-saving pathway to support de-escalation. One possible narrative emphasises that traditional allies remain fundamentally aligned with the United States, even when disagreeing with specific policies. Such framing could preserve credibility while enabling a shift toward diplomacy.

At the same time, the potential involvement of NATO or other nuclear-armed states significantly increases the risk of escalation. In such a scenario, attribution of responsibility for any nuclear use would become highly contested, creating dangerous ambiguity. This uncertainty could trigger a self-reinforcing escalation dynamic, heightening the risk of catastrophic outcomes.

“Ought” rather than “is”: An ethical amnesty framework

Historically, wars tend to end through two pathways. First, when the cumulative human and economic costs become unsustainable. Second, when leaders are provided with face-saving exit options that preserve their legitimacy. In the present conflict, despite high costs, both sides remain entrenched, suggesting that a dignified exit mechanism is essential.

An innovative approach would involve the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, invoking Article 99 of the UN Charter, which allows independent action to address threats to international peace. This could form the basis for a formal appeal for an immediate ceasefire, similar to the global ceasefire call made during COVID-19 in 2020.

Proposed framework

1. Immediate ceasefire: A clear and unconditional call for cessation of hostilities to halt further losses.

 

2. High-level committee: A representative body including major and regional powers, along with independent legal experts, tasked with reaching a binding resolution without veto constraints.

 

3. Interim Strait of Hormuz arrangement: An agreement ensuring continued maritime access, potentially with regulated transit mechanisms, to stabilise global energy flows.

 

4. Durable settlement plan: A UN-mandated framework addressing compensation, security guarantees and long-term conflict prevention, potentially ratified by the UN General Assembly.

This structured approach balances immediate de-escalation with a pathway toward sustainable peace. By providing a face-saving mechanism for all parties, it increases the likelihood of compliance while restoring confidence in international law.

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict represents a critical juncture in global politics. It reflects not only shifting power dynamics but also a deeper erosion of ethical commitment in international relations. Without renewed emphasis on diplomacy, legal norms and moral responsibility, the global order risks descending into a system where power consistently overrides principle.

A carefully framed initiative grounded in ethical pragmatism and institutional authority offers a viable path forward. Such an approach could not only end the current conflict but also contribute to rebuilding a more just and stable international order.

 

Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf is an associate professor and executive director of HYIERI Australia.

 

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/stop-the-stupid-donald-trump--co-have-got-to-go,20900?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/stop-the-stupid-donald-trump--co-have-got-to-go,20900?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

"Donald Trump and his supporters are a threat to humanity," writes Professor Mark Beeson. "Every time you think things can’t get worse... they double-down on stupidity."

DONALD TRUMP was never an obvious choice for the American presidency. He is famously not very bright, and he’s clearly becoming less so with every week that passes. He’s also a convicted felon and completely lacking in any sense of morality or empathy. Even more importantly, perhaps, he has a childlike need for attention and fear of rejection. All of which means he lashes out when he is challenged or feels slighted.

Just how unhinged and lacking in any sense of proportion, responsibility or dignity he has become was evident in his recent social media posts (see above verified screenshot).

After threatening to ‘bomb Iran back to the stone ages’ (there was only one of them, Donald), he told the Iranian leadership to:

'... open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.'

This sort of language and the gratuitous insult to another faith would be unpleasant and inappropriate coming from the mouth of an uncouth, ill-informed racist teenager — which may be exactly what Trump and his even more odious Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, are: over-privileged, emotionally and intellectually stunted frat boys.

This has all proved too much for some former stalwarts of the MAGA movement. And so it should. Majorie Greene, formerly one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, has become one of his fiercest critics. Initially outraged by the Administration’s failure to release the Epstein files, she has now described Trump as "insane" and "not a Christian" because of his illegal war on Iran.

By contrast, Secretary of War Hegseth remains one of the most influential people in Trump’s sycophantic orbit and a self-declared Christian evangelical.

Being a Christian has done little to curb his blood lust; however, a possibility that is evident in Hegseth's assessment of the war with Iran:

"This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down."

Indeed, Hegseth claims to be praying for the use of "overwhelming violence" against Iran "in the name of Jesus".

Cheek-turning has clearly gone out of favour with America’s more fanatical Christian community, who remain enthusiastic Trump supporters.

It’s not just over-enthusiastic Christians that are keen on a bit of smiting, however. Benjamin Netanyahu, another key Trump whisperer, set a new benchmark for hypocrisy when he recently claimed that an assassinated Iranian naval commander had "blood on his hands".  Netanyahu would know something about that after killing something like 70,000 people in Gaza – most of whom were civilians – not to mention reducing the survivors' homes to rubble.

The point to emphasise is that the key players in the two countries trying to destroy Iran and kill its people – "only" a couple of thousand dead so far – have absolutely no empathy, morality or even strategic nous. Not only has Iran plainly not been defeated, as we were led to believe, but the collateral damage to its neighbours and the global economy are potentially immense. Perhaps crashing stock markets will affect Trump’s thinking in ways the death of innocents plainly doesn’t.

Or perhaps not. After all, if you can buy and sell with the benefit of insider information, there’s still lots of money to be made, especially if you’re a corrupt, self-absorbed sociopath. The real victims, as ever, will be the world’s poor and blameless, as they struggle to cope with rising prices and food shortages caused by a breakdown in the supply of fertiliser and the disruption of foreign aid.

It’s hard to overstate what a threat to humanity Trump and his supporters really are. Every time you think things can’t get worse or more ill-advised, they double down on stupidity. Let’s hope someone doesn’t suggest to the most powerful man in the world that the best way to ensure that Iran’s alleged nuclear stockpile is destroyed is to drop a "tactical" nuclear weapon on it.

Q: “Why did you use such vulgar language in that Truth Social post?”

Trump: “Only to make my point.”pic.twitter.com/ocqP9XABVn

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) April 6, 2026

It’s a tactic that worked so well in Japan after all, which seems to be one piece of history Trump actually knows something about — as he demonstrated by delicately reminding Japan’s new Prime Minister about the attack on Pearl Harbour. It’s a pity she didn’t respond by saying that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equally surprised to have nuclear weapons dropped on their unsuspecting heads.

But no one dares to invoke the wrath of the Trump Administration. The big question is at what point do the American people – and especially the American military – say enough is enough. Things are spinning completely out of control and the Trump Administration is a danger to the people they claim to represent and to the rest of the world.

There are some signs that other countries are belatedly recognising the threat, but much more needs to be done. A useful, sobering and cost-free message could be sent by a mass boycott of the forthcoming World Cup. It would be unfortunate for the football tragics amongst us, but a small price to pay for giving President Trump a kick in the psychological goolies; to put it in language he might understand.

Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

]]>

"Donald Trump and his supporters are a threat to humanity," writes Professor Mark Beeson. "Every time you think things can’t get worse... they double-down on stupidity."

DONALD TRUMP was never an obvious choice for the American presidency. He is famously not very bright, and he’s clearly becoming less so with every week that passes. He’s also a convicted felon and completely lacking in any sense of morality or empathy. Even more importantly, perhaps, he has a childlike need for attention and fear of rejection. All of which means he lashes out when he is challenged or feels slighted.

Just how unhinged and lacking in any sense of proportion, responsibility or dignity he has become was evident in his recent social media posts (see above verified screenshot).

After threatening to ‘bomb Iran back to the stone ages’ (there was only one of them, Donald), he told the Iranian leadership to:

'... open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.'

This sort of language and the gratuitous insult to another faith would be unpleasant and inappropriate coming from the mouth of an uncouth, ill-informed racist teenager — which may be exactly what Trump and his even more odious Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, are: over-privileged, emotionally and intellectually stunted frat boys.

This has all proved too much for some former stalwarts of the MAGA movement. And so it should. Majorie Greene, formerly one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, has become one of his fiercest critics. Initially outraged by the Administration’s failure to release the Epstein files, she has now described Trump as "insane" and "not a Christian" because of his illegal war on Iran.

By contrast, Secretary of War Hegseth remains one of the most influential people in Trump’s sycophantic orbit and a self-declared Christian evangelical.

Being a Christian has done little to curb his blood lust; however, a possibility that is evident in Hegseth's assessment of the war with Iran:

"This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down."

Indeed, Hegseth claims to be praying for the use of "overwhelming violence" against Iran "in the name of Jesus".

Cheek-turning has clearly gone out of favour with America’s more fanatical Christian community, who remain enthusiastic Trump supporters.

It’s not just over-enthusiastic Christians that are keen on a bit of smiting, however. Benjamin Netanyahu, another key Trump whisperer, set a new benchmark for hypocrisy when he recently claimed that an assassinated Iranian naval commander had "blood on his hands".  Netanyahu would know something about that after killing something like 70,000 people in Gaza – most of whom were civilians – not to mention reducing the survivors' homes to rubble.

The point to emphasise is that the key players in the two countries trying to destroy Iran and kill its people – "only" a couple of thousand dead so far – have absolutely no empathy, morality or even strategic nous. Not only has Iran plainly not been defeated, as we were led to believe, but the collateral damage to its neighbours and the global economy are potentially immense. Perhaps crashing stock markets will affect Trump’s thinking in ways the death of innocents plainly doesn’t.

Or perhaps not. After all, if you can buy and sell with the benefit of insider information, there’s still lots of money to be made, especially if you’re a corrupt, self-absorbed sociopath. The real victims, as ever, will be the world’s poor and blameless, as they struggle to cope with rising prices and food shortages caused by a breakdown in the supply of fertiliser and the disruption of foreign aid.

It’s hard to overstate what a threat to humanity Trump and his supporters really are. Every time you think things can’t get worse or more ill-advised, they double down on stupidity. Let’s hope someone doesn’t suggest to the most powerful man in the world that the best way to ensure that Iran’s alleged nuclear stockpile is destroyed is to drop a "tactical" nuclear weapon on it.

Q: “Why did you use such vulgar language in that Truth Social post?”

Trump: “Only to make my point.”pic.twitter.com/ocqP9XABVn

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) April 6, 2026

It’s a tactic that worked so well in Japan after all, which seems to be one piece of history Trump actually knows something about — as he demonstrated by delicately reminding Japan’s new Prime Minister about the attack on Pearl Harbour. It’s a pity she didn’t respond by saying that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equally surprised to have nuclear weapons dropped on their unsuspecting heads.

But no one dares to invoke the wrath of the Trump Administration. The big question is at what point do the American people – and especially the American military – say enough is enough. Things are spinning completely out of control and the Trump Administration is a danger to the people they claim to represent and to the rest of the world.

There are some signs that other countries are belatedly recognising the threat, but much more needs to be done. A useful, sobering and cost-free message could be sent by a mass boycott of the forthcoming World Cup. It would be unfortunate for the football tragics amongst us, but a small price to pay for giving President Trump a kick in the psychological goolies; to put it in language he might understand.

Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/cartoons-pauline-hanson-is-gaga-for-trump-and-maga,20912?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 10 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/cartoons-pauline-hanson-is-gaga-for-trump-and-maga,20912?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

They do have a lot in common: racism, sexism, appalling behaviour...

 

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

]]>

They do have a lot in common: racism, sexism, appalling behaviour...

 

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-transferable-skills-that-power-a-founders-day-to-day-tasks,20913?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 10 Apr 2026 02:08:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-transferable-skills-that-power-a-founders-day-to-day-tasks,20913?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

There’s a myth that business owners and founders spend their days dreaming up world-changing ideas or pitching investors over long lunches.

The reality is actually far less glamorous. It’s back-to-back calls. Fixing unexpected problems. Redrafting a proposal at midnight. Switching between strategy and operations in the span of an hour.

What keeps things moving isn’t some secret founder gene or talent. It’s a set of transferable skills that quietly do all the heavy lifting, every single day. And the interesting part? Most of them aren’t technical. They’re the kind of skills you can develop long before you ever register a business name. Here are a few worth paying attention to. 

1. Clear, confident communication

If there’s one skill that sits at the foundation of virtually everything a founder does, it’s communication. You’re explaining what your product does. Selling your vision. Giving feedback. Negotiating contracts. Handling complaints. All in the same week, sometimes even the same day. 

This is where formal training pays off. Some founders develop these skills through experience. However, many choose to pursue further study through a Master's of Communication in order to learn more about messaging, persuasion and audience psychology. In either case, your end goal is the same: determine how best to shape your message. Investors want numbers. Customers want clarity. Staff want direction. 

Being able to read the room and adjust your tone accordingly is what separates chaotic founders from steady ones. Day to day, this looks like writing sharper emails, organising meetings that don’t drag on and being able to say “no” without burning bridges. It’s not flashy, but it’s practical. And it’s also a ridiculous time-saver.

2. Time management (that actually works)

Founders don’t get to focus on one thing at a time. You could be balancing the books in the morning, dealing with a supplier issue at lunch and brainstorming marketing campaigns after business hours.

An effective approach to time management isn’t about colour-coded planners or fancy online calendars. It’s about prioritisation. It’s about knowing what actually moves the needle and what can wait, knowing when to hand over the reins and when to really lock in. 

A founder who can structure their day properly avoids constant firefighting. Rather than simply reacting to what’s happening, they’re able to determine what they should focus on first. That clarity compounds over time and makes a large part of strong leadership skills.

3. Financial awareness

You don’t have to be a chartered accountant to own a business. But you do have to know enough about the numbers to make informed decisions. 

Cash flow, margins and overheads aren’t abstract concepts. They’re not exactly fun, but they determine whether you’re able to hire, invest, or even sleep well at night. Financially fluent founders can identify problems earlier, price more effectively and avoid nasty surprises. In everyday life, this can look like reviewing costs weekly, asking questions about the cost of materials, or even knowing how many sales you need to break even.

It also means considering timing. Revenue may look good on paper, but if payments are trickling in or huge expenses hit all at once, the gap matters. Acknowledging your numbers with a quick monthly check-in can prevent small problems from quietly growing into big ones.

4. Decision-making under pressure

No one is swooping in to save the day when you’re a founder. It's all on you. Whether it’s choosing between two suppliers, firing an employee, or pivoting a strategy because it’s not working, decisions need to be made daily. And it almost never comes with perfect information.

Being comfortable making reasonable decisions with incomplete data is a skill you’ll have to master. You gather what you can, weigh the risk and move. Overthinking costs time. Paralysis costs momentum. Confidence here doesn’t mean arrogance. It’s about having faith in your process and being open to quick changes when needed.

Eventually, you’ll learn how to recognise patterns. Not all problems are urgent and not all risks end in catastrophe. Founders who learn to filter the noise from the real signals are better at making calmer, cleaner decisions.

5. Relationship building

Business runs on relationships. Suppliers, customers, collaborators, staff, investors. Even competitors. Founders who develop strong professional relationships tend to find that doors open a little more easily. People respond faster and opportunities show up in conversations, not cold emails.

On a practical level, this skill looks like following up with the right people, remembering small details about clients and treating business partners as connections for life, not one-off transactions. Goodwill will become one of your strongest assets. Alongside this, a lot of sales and marketing is facilitated through strong relationship-building skills.

6. Adaptability

The past decade or so has made it very clear that business conditions can turn on a dime. Market fluctuations, policy adjustments, new tech, global pandemics — the stuff that worked a year or two ago most likely won’t be cutting it today. And that’s to be expected.

Adaptability is less about dramatic pivots and more about staying mentally flexible. This includes remaining open to new tools and not getting stuck in old practices that might not be the best fit for your business today. Founders who can adapt don’t waste energy or resources fighting reality. They zone in on what can be changed and continue progressing.

7. Self-management

This one isn’t discussed enough. Running a business can be incredibly draining, both mentally and physically. There’s no “switch off” when something goes wrong. You can clock off at 5 pm, but your brain doesn’t. You’re contemplating cash flow while cooking dinner. Revisiting a tough client call while sitting around with friends. Staying up till 2 am because you’ve forgotten to send an email. 

Handling that mental burden comes with the territory, but mastering it is a skill unto itself. Knowing when to walk away, when to stop refreshing your inbox and understanding that some things can wait until tomorrow makes a difference. Sure, you’re the founder, but that doesn’t mean the business should eat up every tiny bit of your life.

Guarding that space isn’t lazy or indulgent. It’s what holds you steady and keeps you sane. Because when you’re rested and clearheaded, you make better calls, respond more calmly and show up more effectively the next day. Even founders need boundaries.

Final thoughts

No two days look the same when you’re a founder, but the skills behind each day don’t change all that much. It’s still about communicating clearly, determining what really counts now, making sense of the numbers, keeping a cool head when things go sideways and maintaining good relationships.

It’s not the sort of thing you become great at overnight. It takes time, experience and a few wrong turns. You learn it from previous roles, tough conversations and projects that didn’t pan out the way you hoped. The difference is that once you’re a founder, you rely on those skills every minute of the day. 

And more often than not, they’re the glue that keeps everything together when everything else seems uncertain.

 

]]>

There’s a myth that business owners and founders spend their days dreaming up world-changing ideas or pitching investors over long lunches.

The reality is actually far less glamorous. It’s back-to-back calls. Fixing unexpected problems. Redrafting a proposal at midnight. Switching between strategy and operations in the span of an hour.

What keeps things moving isn’t some secret founder gene or talent. It’s a set of transferable skills that quietly do all the heavy lifting, every single day. And the interesting part? Most of them aren’t technical. They’re the kind of skills you can develop long before you ever register a business name. Here are a few worth paying attention to. 

1. Clear, confident communication

If there’s one skill that sits at the foundation of virtually everything a founder does, it’s communication. You’re explaining what your product does. Selling your vision. Giving feedback. Negotiating contracts. Handling complaints. All in the same week, sometimes even the same day. 

This is where formal training pays off. Some founders develop these skills through experience. However, many choose to pursue further study through a Master's of Communication in order to learn more about messaging, persuasion and audience psychology. In either case, your end goal is the same: determine how best to shape your message. Investors want numbers. Customers want clarity. Staff want direction. 

Being able to read the room and adjust your tone accordingly is what separates chaotic founders from steady ones. Day to day, this looks like writing sharper emails, organising meetings that don’t drag on and being able to say “no” without burning bridges. It’s not flashy, but it’s practical. And it’s also a ridiculous time-saver.

2. Time management (that actually works)

Founders don’t get to focus on one thing at a time. You could be balancing the books in the morning, dealing with a supplier issue at lunch and brainstorming marketing campaigns after business hours.

An effective approach to time management isn’t about colour-coded planners or fancy online calendars. It’s about prioritisation. It’s about knowing what actually moves the needle and what can wait, knowing when to hand over the reins and when to really lock in. 

A founder who can structure their day properly avoids constant firefighting. Rather than simply reacting to what’s happening, they’re able to determine what they should focus on first. That clarity compounds over time and makes a large part of strong leadership skills.

3. Financial awareness

You don’t have to be a chartered accountant to own a business. But you do have to know enough about the numbers to make informed decisions. 

Cash flow, margins and overheads aren’t abstract concepts. They’re not exactly fun, but they determine whether you’re able to hire, invest, or even sleep well at night. Financially fluent founders can identify problems earlier, price more effectively and avoid nasty surprises. In everyday life, this can look like reviewing costs weekly, asking questions about the cost of materials, or even knowing how many sales you need to break even.

It also means considering timing. Revenue may look good on paper, but if payments are trickling in or huge expenses hit all at once, the gap matters. Acknowledging your numbers with a quick monthly check-in can prevent small problems from quietly growing into big ones.

4. Decision-making under pressure

No one is swooping in to save the day when you’re a founder. It's all on you. Whether it’s choosing between two suppliers, firing an employee, or pivoting a strategy because it’s not working, decisions need to be made daily. And it almost never comes with perfect information.

Being comfortable making reasonable decisions with incomplete data is a skill you’ll have to master. You gather what you can, weigh the risk and move. Overthinking costs time. Paralysis costs momentum. Confidence here doesn’t mean arrogance. It’s about having faith in your process and being open to quick changes when needed.

Eventually, you’ll learn how to recognise patterns. Not all problems are urgent and not all risks end in catastrophe. Founders who learn to filter the noise from the real signals are better at making calmer, cleaner decisions.

5. Relationship building

Business runs on relationships. Suppliers, customers, collaborators, staff, investors. Even competitors. Founders who develop strong professional relationships tend to find that doors open a little more easily. People respond faster and opportunities show up in conversations, not cold emails.

On a practical level, this skill looks like following up with the right people, remembering small details about clients and treating business partners as connections for life, not one-off transactions. Goodwill will become one of your strongest assets. Alongside this, a lot of sales and marketing is facilitated through strong relationship-building skills.

6. Adaptability

The past decade or so has made it very clear that business conditions can turn on a dime. Market fluctuations, policy adjustments, new tech, global pandemics — the stuff that worked a year or two ago most likely won’t be cutting it today. And that’s to be expected.

Adaptability is less about dramatic pivots and more about staying mentally flexible. This includes remaining open to new tools and not getting stuck in old practices that might not be the best fit for your business today. Founders who can adapt don’t waste energy or resources fighting reality. They zone in on what can be changed and continue progressing.

7. Self-management

This one isn’t discussed enough. Running a business can be incredibly draining, both mentally and physically. There’s no “switch off” when something goes wrong. You can clock off at 5 pm, but your brain doesn’t. You’re contemplating cash flow while cooking dinner. Revisiting a tough client call while sitting around with friends. Staying up till 2 am because you’ve forgotten to send an email. 

Handling that mental burden comes with the territory, but mastering it is a skill unto itself. Knowing when to walk away, when to stop refreshing your inbox and understanding that some things can wait until tomorrow makes a difference. Sure, you’re the founder, but that doesn’t mean the business should eat up every tiny bit of your life.

Guarding that space isn’t lazy or indulgent. It’s what holds you steady and keeps you sane. Because when you’re rested and clearheaded, you make better calls, respond more calmly and show up more effectively the next day. Even founders need boundaries.

Final thoughts

No two days look the same when you’re a founder, but the skills behind each day don’t change all that much. It’s still about communicating clearly, determining what really counts now, making sense of the numbers, keeping a cool head when things go sideways and maintaining good relationships.

It’s not the sort of thing you become great at overnight. It takes time, experience and a few wrong turns. You learn it from previous roles, tough conversations and projects that didn’t pan out the way you hoped. The difference is that once you’re a founder, you rely on those skills every minute of the day. 

And more often than not, they’re the glue that keeps everything together when everything else seems uncertain.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/when-allies-threaten-war-crimes-silence-is-self-destruction,20902?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/when-allies-threaten-war-crimes-silence-is-self-destruction,20902?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

If Trump bombs Iran's civilian infrastructure, Britain and Australia must respond — not out of partisanship, but because the laws that protect Tehran today protect London and Sydney, writes Dr Vince Hooper.

A DIALYSIS MACHINE needs roughly the same things a human body does: clean water, steady power and someone awake to mind it. Take away the grid and the pumping stations, and you have not struck a military target. You have killed, slowly, every patient in the ward.

This is what "destroying civilian infrastructure" looks like once the press conference ends and the ordnance arrives — not a clean strike on a turbine hall but a quiet, clinical asphyxiation of the people the turbines were keeping alive.

Norms that only bind our enemies are not norms at all — they are slogans with better stationery.

President Trump has now threatened to do exactly that. In a profanity-laced Truth Social post on 5 April, he announced that 'Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day' in Iran unless Tehran reopens the Strait of Hormuz by 8 pm Eastern time the following day.

At a White House press conference on 6 April, he expanded the threat to every power plant and every bridge in the country, promising complete demolition within four hours of the deadline expiring. Asked whether such strikes on civilian infrastructure would amount to a war crime under international law, the President replied that he was not worried.

He ought to be. More than a hundred international-law scholars, in an open letter dated 2 April, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the European Council and senior UN officials have all said what any first-year law student could tell him: collective punishment of a civilian population is prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, reinforced by customary international humanitarian law binding on every state whether they signed or not, and criminalised in British and Australian domestic law.

Deliberately destroying the water, power and transport infrastructure a civilian population needs to survive is not a negotiating tactic. It is, in plain English, a war crime announced in advance — with a deadline attached.

The sensible response to a publicly announced crime is a publicly announced consequence, communicated before the bombs drop, so that the threat itself becomes costlier than the act. This is not Left or Right. It is the question of whether the rules that exist to protect us still mean anything when an ally is the one threatening to break them.

The reciprocity point

Every international legal protection is, at bottom, a bet on reciprocity. We do not prohibit the shelling of hospitals because hospitals are sacred; we prohibit it because the day may come when the hospital is ours. Norms that only bind our enemies are not norms at all — they are slogans with better stationery.

Imagine, briefly, that Britain or Australia were on the receiving end. No fuel. No water. No power. No internet. Dialysis clinics dark by Tuesday. Sewage in the streets by Friday. Neonatal units running down their generator diesel while the Americans, or the Chinese, or whoever had decided we were next, explained on cable television that this was regrettable but necessary. At that moment, the only thing standing between a British or Australian civilian and a slow death by infrastructure collapse is a body of law that our governments either enforced last time it mattered, or did not.

Britain grasped the principle in 1991. The War Crimes Act was a policy begun under Margaret Thatcher and forced through by John Major after the House of Lords rejected it twice, obliging the British Government to invoke the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 — the only time in history a Conservative Government has done so.

The Act was narrowly drafted, confined to grave breaches committed in German-held territory during the Second World War and in three decades it has produced exactly one conviction: Anthony Sawoniuk, sentenced to life in 1999 for murders committed as a collaborationist policeman in Belarus, who died in prison in 2005. One conviction is not a failure. It is the point. The law exists to say that Britain will reach across decades and borders when the crime is grave enough, and that the passage of time is no defence.

The principle was broadened decisively a decade later by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which folded the Rome Statute's definitions of war crimes directly into UK law. Australia did the same through the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002. Both countries, on their own statute books, already possess the machinery. The only question is whether they are willing to switch it on.

An ally who cannot be told "no" on a publicly threatened war crime is not an ally; it is a liability underwritten by our own statute books.

A graded response, not a single menu

The honest answer is that the four obvious responses vary enormously in how hard they are and lumping them together weakens the strong ones.

1. Cancel the state visit

This is the easy case and the place to start. A state visit is entirely a gift of the host government; there is ample precedent for withholding or postponing one as a political signal and it requires no legal innovation whatsoever. If the King is scheduled to host a man who has announced an intention to drown a civilian population in its own sewage, the visit should not proceed. Any Australian equivalent – ceremonial fixture, joint press availability, Lodge dinner – is on the same footing.

2. Review the sporting ties

The 2026 World Cup is co-hosted by the United States; the 2028 Olympics are in Los Angeles. Sporting boycotts are blunt instruments and historically punish athletes more than leaders – 1980 Moscow remains the cautionary tale – but the apartheid-era precedent shows they can shift the needle when the underlying conduct is grave enough. This belongs in the conversation, not at the front of it.

3. Freeze the assets

Harder. Designating a sitting allied head of state under the UK's Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, is legally possible and politically seismic. The honest version of the proposal is that the architecture exists and should be held in reserve, not brandished as a first move.

4. Prosecute

Hardest of all, and here the argument meets the wall of head-of-state immunity. The International Court of Justice confirmed in the Arrest Warrant case (DRC v Belgium, 2002) that sitting heads of state enjoy personal immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction under customary international law. The ICC can, in principle, pierce that, but the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and no British or Australian government is going to arrest a sitting American president on its soil.

The honest framing is therefore after he leaves office — at which point personal immunity lapses, the evidence remains and the statute of limitations on grave breaches does not. Advertising that clock, now, is itself a form of deterrence.

Why say any of this out loud

Deterrence works only if the threat is credible and communicated. A quiet internal review inside the Foreign Office or DFAT deters nothing and protects no one. The point of laying out a graded response before the bombs drop is to make the diplomatic cost visible to the one man whose decision matters.

The alliance architecture makes this more urgent, not less. Britain sits inside NATO; Australia sits inside ANZUS and AUKUS. Those frameworks exist to pool risk among states that trust one another to stay within the laws of war — not to bind their members silently to whatever the largest partner announces on a podium. An ally who cannot be told "no" on a publicly threatened war crime is not an ally; it is a liability underwritten by our own statute books.

None of this is anti-American. The Americans wrote much of the post-1945 legal architecture under discussion. They prosecuted the Nuremberg cases. They insisted on Geneva. A president threatening to drag his country across those lines is not the voice of America; he is the voice of one man testing whether the rest of us still believe in what the Americans built.

The rules of war were not written to protect strangers. They were written by countries that had just watched their own cities burn, for countries that might one day watch their own cities burn again. When Britain and Australia look away from a publicly announced war crime because the man announcing it is an ally, they are not being loyal. They are cancelling their own insurance policy — and then complaining, the day the fire comes, that no one will pay out.

Somewhere in Tehran tonight, there is a dialysis ward where the machines are still running. Somewhere in London and Sydney, there is one too. The law that keeps the first ward alive is the same law that keeps the second. Defend it for them, and it will be there for us. Abandon it for them, and there will be nothing to invoke the day the fire comes for us — only the memory of how quickly we agreed it didn't matter.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]>

If Trump bombs Iran's civilian infrastructure, Britain and Australia must respond — not out of partisanship, but because the laws that protect Tehran today protect London and Sydney, writes Dr Vince Hooper.

A DIALYSIS MACHINE needs roughly the same things a human body does: clean water, steady power and someone awake to mind it. Take away the grid and the pumping stations, and you have not struck a military target. You have killed, slowly, every patient in the ward.

This is what "destroying civilian infrastructure" looks like once the press conference ends and the ordnance arrives — not a clean strike on a turbine hall but a quiet, clinical asphyxiation of the people the turbines were keeping alive.

Norms that only bind our enemies are not norms at all — they are slogans with better stationery.

President Trump has now threatened to do exactly that. In a profanity-laced Truth Social post on 5 April, he announced that 'Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day' in Iran unless Tehran reopens the Strait of Hormuz by 8 pm Eastern time the following day.

At a White House press conference on 6 April, he expanded the threat to every power plant and every bridge in the country, promising complete demolition within four hours of the deadline expiring. Asked whether such strikes on civilian infrastructure would amount to a war crime under international law, the President replied that he was not worried.

He ought to be. More than a hundred international-law scholars, in an open letter dated 2 April, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the European Council and senior UN officials have all said what any first-year law student could tell him: collective punishment of a civilian population is prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, reinforced by customary international humanitarian law binding on every state whether they signed or not, and criminalised in British and Australian domestic law.

Deliberately destroying the water, power and transport infrastructure a civilian population needs to survive is not a negotiating tactic. It is, in plain English, a war crime announced in advance — with a deadline attached.

The sensible response to a publicly announced crime is a publicly announced consequence, communicated before the bombs drop, so that the threat itself becomes costlier than the act. This is not Left or Right. It is the question of whether the rules that exist to protect us still mean anything when an ally is the one threatening to break them.

The reciprocity point

Every international legal protection is, at bottom, a bet on reciprocity. We do not prohibit the shelling of hospitals because hospitals are sacred; we prohibit it because the day may come when the hospital is ours. Norms that only bind our enemies are not norms at all — they are slogans with better stationery.

Imagine, briefly, that Britain or Australia were on the receiving end. No fuel. No water. No power. No internet. Dialysis clinics dark by Tuesday. Sewage in the streets by Friday. Neonatal units running down their generator diesel while the Americans, or the Chinese, or whoever had decided we were next, explained on cable television that this was regrettable but necessary. At that moment, the only thing standing between a British or Australian civilian and a slow death by infrastructure collapse is a body of law that our governments either enforced last time it mattered, or did not.

Britain grasped the principle in 1991. The War Crimes Act was a policy begun under Margaret Thatcher and forced through by John Major after the House of Lords rejected it twice, obliging the British Government to invoke the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 — the only time in history a Conservative Government has done so.

The Act was narrowly drafted, confined to grave breaches committed in German-held territory during the Second World War and in three decades it has produced exactly one conviction: Anthony Sawoniuk, sentenced to life in 1999 for murders committed as a collaborationist policeman in Belarus, who died in prison in 2005. One conviction is not a failure. It is the point. The law exists to say that Britain will reach across decades and borders when the crime is grave enough, and that the passage of time is no defence.

The principle was broadened decisively a decade later by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which folded the Rome Statute's definitions of war crimes directly into UK law. Australia did the same through the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002. Both countries, on their own statute books, already possess the machinery. The only question is whether they are willing to switch it on.

An ally who cannot be told "no" on a publicly threatened war crime is not an ally; it is a liability underwritten by our own statute books.

A graded response, not a single menu

The honest answer is that the four obvious responses vary enormously in how hard they are and lumping them together weakens the strong ones.

1. Cancel the state visit

This is the easy case and the place to start. A state visit is entirely a gift of the host government; there is ample precedent for withholding or postponing one as a political signal and it requires no legal innovation whatsoever. If the King is scheduled to host a man who has announced an intention to drown a civilian population in its own sewage, the visit should not proceed. Any Australian equivalent – ceremonial fixture, joint press availability, Lodge dinner – is on the same footing.

2. Review the sporting ties

The 2026 World Cup is co-hosted by the United States; the 2028 Olympics are in Los Angeles. Sporting boycotts are blunt instruments and historically punish athletes more than leaders – 1980 Moscow remains the cautionary tale – but the apartheid-era precedent shows they can shift the needle when the underlying conduct is grave enough. This belongs in the conversation, not at the front of it.

3. Freeze the assets

Harder. Designating a sitting allied head of state under the UK's Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, is legally possible and politically seismic. The honest version of the proposal is that the architecture exists and should be held in reserve, not brandished as a first move.

4. Prosecute

Hardest of all, and here the argument meets the wall of head-of-state immunity. The International Court of Justice confirmed in the Arrest Warrant case (DRC v Belgium, 2002) that sitting heads of state enjoy personal immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction under customary international law. The ICC can, in principle, pierce that, but the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and no British or Australian government is going to arrest a sitting American president on its soil.

The honest framing is therefore after he leaves office — at which point personal immunity lapses, the evidence remains and the statute of limitations on grave breaches does not. Advertising that clock, now, is itself a form of deterrence.

Why say any of this out loud

Deterrence works only if the threat is credible and communicated. A quiet internal review inside the Foreign Office or DFAT deters nothing and protects no one. The point of laying out a graded response before the bombs drop is to make the diplomatic cost visible to the one man whose decision matters.

The alliance architecture makes this more urgent, not less. Britain sits inside NATO; Australia sits inside ANZUS and AUKUS. Those frameworks exist to pool risk among states that trust one another to stay within the laws of war — not to bind their members silently to whatever the largest partner announces on a podium. An ally who cannot be told "no" on a publicly threatened war crime is not an ally; it is a liability underwritten by our own statute books.

None of this is anti-American. The Americans wrote much of the post-1945 legal architecture under discussion. They prosecuted the Nuremberg cases. They insisted on Geneva. A president threatening to drag his country across those lines is not the voice of America; he is the voice of one man testing whether the rest of us still believe in what the Americans built.

The rules of war were not written to protect strangers. They were written by countries that had just watched their own cities burn, for countries that might one day watch their own cities burn again. When Britain and Australia look away from a publicly announced war crime because the man announcing it is an ally, they are not being loyal. They are cancelling their own insurance policy — and then complaining, the day the fire comes, that no one will pay out.

Somewhere in Tehran tonight, there is a dialysis ward where the machines are still running. Somewhere in London and Sydney, there is one too. The law that keeps the first ward alive is the same law that keeps the second. Defend it for them, and it will be there for us. Abandon it for them, and there will be nothing to invoke the day the fire comes for us — only the memory of how quickly we agreed it didn't matter.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/jeff-mcmullen-trumps-own-goals-in-iran,20909?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 16:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/jeff-mcmullen-trumps-own-goals-in-iran,20909?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Donald Trump’s biggest blunders, Dr Jeff McMullen writes, will hinder any prospect of a lasting peace or real stability in the war-torn Middle East.

WHILE Iran’s militant Islamist regime has often threatened to “wipe Israel from the map”, no United States President before Trump has ever countered with a genocidal threat.

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!
~ President Donald Trump on Truth Social

Trump’s demented threats will loom large over any prospect of the announced two-week ceasefire in the Iran War, leading to a broader and lasting peace between the belligerents. His wish for smarter minds to prevail is a devastating self-indictment.

In emulating Richard Nixon’s so-called “madman theory”, Trump mistakenly believed that veiled threats of nuclear annihilation might force an enemy to surrender or at least "cut a deal". There is no evidence these threats forced Iran’s hand.

In reality, Trump was only revealing anger and panic after crucial miscalculations that led to closure of the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping; a growing toll on the U.S. and global economy; and above all, the impact this had on his beloved U.S. stock market.

On Easter Sunday, Trump’s post on Truth Social was full of rage:

'Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP'

With the war in Iran continuing past the five-week mark, Trump mingled with little children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll. A giant Easter Bunny looked over his shoulder.

It was mind-boggling to watch the President ramble about the war in Iran, the price of eggs and, of course, how he had saved America:

“We had a dead country. We had an administration that didn’t know what the hell they were doing. Today, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. We’re respected by everybody.”

This is so far from the truth, even for a chronic liar, that it demonstrates how Trump has lost the plot.

Through his strategic missteps, lack of discipline and abandonment of self-control, he has offended and alarmed allies, weakened the NATO Alliance at a critical time, and disastrously undermined trust in United States global leadership.

The April 8 two-week ceasefire, which came into force just one and a half hours before Trump’s apocalyptic deadline, might soon be cast by Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, as a heaven-sent peace settlement. The ceasefire can hardly be credited to the hapless diplomacy of this U.S. Administration.

The Iranians had every reason not to trust Trump’s non-diplomat negotiators, Steve Whitkoff, a billionaire real estate developer and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both with extensive business dealings in the Middle East.

This war started when the U.S. team supposedly were deep in earnest negotiations to settle disputes over Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and amass a threatening arsenal of long-range missiles.

Will the Trump Administration ever be trusted again by allies or adversaries?

On this occasion, Pakistan did the hard diplomatic yards to achieve the conditional cease-fire. Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan helped through phone hookups with the Gulf States, relaying messages to Iran and the United States. Then, China intervened to persuade Iran that a short ceasefire could proceed to a satisfactory full settlement.

The U.S. and Iran were left to spin their dubious claims of victory and predictably bicker over who had forced whom to call off the fighting temporarily.

Unsurprisingly, Israel soon announced that it was not agreeing to end its attack on Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who helped negotiate the ceasefire, insisted that the conflict in Lebanon was a part of the agreement. So right here is just one of the early glaring cracks in the ten-point ceasefire plan.

As I wrote last month, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always had his own agenda, which included crippling Iran’s ability to attack and also severely degrading the effectiveness of Iranian terrorist surrogates, such as Hezbollah.

New York Times journalists, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, have reinforced Netanyahu’s sway over Trump’s decision-making.

In a new book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, they detail how Netanyahu joined Trump’s key advisers in the White House Situation Room and convinced the President that Iran had become extremely vulnerable. It was the right time for a war that would be short, devastating and very quickly lead to Iranian regime change.

These miscalculations are staggering.

According to Haberman and Swan, Trump’s CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, called this scenario for regime change “farcical”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said bluntly it was “bullshit” and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, calculated that it was just “hard-selling” by the Israelis because their plans were not “always well-developed”. Yet, as Haberman and Swan conclude, disturbingly, none of these team players dissuaded Trump from enjoining the Netanyahu gambit.

It is hardly surprising that many Israelis are unsettled by a war that lasted far longer than Netanyahu calculated. There have been numerous Iranian missile attacks on civilians, including those in other Gulf States, without any assurances that they will be any safer in future.

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid has said that the current situation is a disaster for Israel. He claimed that Netanyahu had “failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet any of the goals he set himself”.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has shattered President Trump’s claims that the United States has achieved all its most important military goals in this war.

The Iranians insist that they will retain their right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear stockpile. Ending this threat was one of Trump’s most crucial goals, after erroneously stating that last year’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” the nuclear threat.

Causing even greater alarm, the Supreme National Security Council is insisting that it will regulate the future flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Furthermore, Iran wants to impose charges — call it a Trumpian tariff or permanent toll on traffic through the waterway.  

During the war, a toll of about $2 million per oil tanker (paid in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency) has been imposed on some of the ships allowed through the Strait.

Iran’s objective now appears to be to create a lasting mechanism to repair the devastation inflicted by the war.

Strategically speaking, if a toll system persists, it might make Iran one of the richest nations in the Gulf region. It would certainly drive up the cost of a barrel of oil, given that 20 per cent of the world’s supply usually passes by Iran and Oman, which is also involved in seeking this toll arrangement.

Before the start of the Iran war, oil tankers and other shipping moved freely through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. If Trump were to accept Iran’s unique geographic claim of now controlling this vital sea lane, it would amount to one of the greatest strategic "own goals" in American history.

The Iranians are aware that the United States still has three aircraft carriers, supporting vessels, numerous aircraft, marines and special operation forces at the edge of this warzone.

Iran wants assurances that it will not be attacked again by the United States or Israel, that it will be paid reparations and that the sanctions imposed in various forms for more than four decades would be lifted.

In one of the demands most unlikely to be met, Iran also seeks the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from bases in the Gulf States.

There clearly is a chasm between Iran’s version of a ten-point plan and the United States offering of a 15-point plan. We should still expect extremely difficult, protracted negotiations if Iran and the U.S. take up Pakistan’s invitation for direct talks in Islamabad.

After threatening to end civilisation in Iran, it is just like Donald Trump to declare in his next social media post that 'this is a big day for World Peace':

Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough! Likewise, so has everyone else!...There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just “hanging around” in order to make sure everything goes well. I feel confident that it will. Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!

~ President Donald Trump 

As his behaviour has become increasingly maddening, there are renewed calls by Democrats for a third attempt to impeach Trump.

Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts estimated that there were now more than 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives and some 20 in the Senate willing to vote for impeachment.

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont declared that Trump’s impulsive action in launching this war had caused grievous damage to Iranian civilians, including attacks on 60 hospitals, 44 schools and also on desalination plants on which the entire population depended.

Yes, the Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of its protesting citizens since last Christmas and brutal executions of political opponents have continued.

Five weeks of the Iranian war have claimed the lives of thousands more innocent civilians, including the appalling slaughter of children in Iran and Lebanon. Thirteen U.S. military personnel have also gone home in coffins. This cannot be swept away by Trump’s attempts to shift blame.

An unstable President, his chaotic leadership, tactical errors, profane outbursts and damage to U.S. credibility are combining to energise more American citizens to express their outrage.

What have they been doing, you may ask?

The truth is that only next November’s midterm U.S. elections hold any possibility of curbing Trump’s willingness to use American military power at whim.

Journalist, author and filmmaker Dr Jeff McMullen AM is a patron of the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) and the First People’s Disability Network (FPDN), both of which officially support the "Yes" campaign. He is an ambassador for NOFASD Australia.

]]>

Donald Trump’s biggest blunders, Dr Jeff McMullen writes, will hinder any prospect of a lasting peace or real stability in the war-torn Middle East.

WHILE Iran’s militant Islamist regime has often threatened to “wipe Israel from the map”, no United States President before Trump has ever countered with a genocidal threat.

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!
~ President Donald Trump on Truth Social

Trump’s demented threats will loom large over any prospect of the announced two-week ceasefire in the Iran War, leading to a broader and lasting peace between the belligerents. His wish for smarter minds to prevail is a devastating self-indictment.

In emulating Richard Nixon’s so-called “madman theory”, Trump mistakenly believed that veiled threats of nuclear annihilation might force an enemy to surrender or at least "cut a deal". There is no evidence these threats forced Iran’s hand.

In reality, Trump was only revealing anger and panic after crucial miscalculations that led to closure of the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping; a growing toll on the U.S. and global economy; and above all, the impact this had on his beloved U.S. stock market.

On Easter Sunday, Trump’s post on Truth Social was full of rage:

'Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP'

With the war in Iran continuing past the five-week mark, Trump mingled with little children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll. A giant Easter Bunny looked over his shoulder.

It was mind-boggling to watch the President ramble about the war in Iran, the price of eggs and, of course, how he had saved America:

“We had a dead country. We had an administration that didn’t know what the hell they were doing. Today, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. We’re respected by everybody.”

This is so far from the truth, even for a chronic liar, that it demonstrates how Trump has lost the plot.

Through his strategic missteps, lack of discipline and abandonment of self-control, he has offended and alarmed allies, weakened the NATO Alliance at a critical time, and disastrously undermined trust in United States global leadership.

The April 8 two-week ceasefire, which came into force just one and a half hours before Trump’s apocalyptic deadline, might soon be cast by Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, as a heaven-sent peace settlement. The ceasefire can hardly be credited to the hapless diplomacy of this U.S. Administration.

The Iranians had every reason not to trust Trump’s non-diplomat negotiators, Steve Whitkoff, a billionaire real estate developer and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both with extensive business dealings in the Middle East.

This war started when the U.S. team supposedly were deep in earnest negotiations to settle disputes over Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and amass a threatening arsenal of long-range missiles.

Will the Trump Administration ever be trusted again by allies or adversaries?

On this occasion, Pakistan did the hard diplomatic yards to achieve the conditional cease-fire. Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan helped through phone hookups with the Gulf States, relaying messages to Iran and the United States. Then, China intervened to persuade Iran that a short ceasefire could proceed to a satisfactory full settlement.

The U.S. and Iran were left to spin their dubious claims of victory and predictably bicker over who had forced whom to call off the fighting temporarily.

Unsurprisingly, Israel soon announced that it was not agreeing to end its attack on Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who helped negotiate the ceasefire, insisted that the conflict in Lebanon was a part of the agreement. So right here is just one of the early glaring cracks in the ten-point ceasefire plan.

As I wrote last month, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always had his own agenda, which included crippling Iran’s ability to attack and also severely degrading the effectiveness of Iranian terrorist surrogates, such as Hezbollah.

New York Times journalists, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, have reinforced Netanyahu’s sway over Trump’s decision-making.

In a new book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, they detail how Netanyahu joined Trump’s key advisers in the White House Situation Room and convinced the President that Iran had become extremely vulnerable. It was the right time for a war that would be short, devastating and very quickly lead to Iranian regime change.

These miscalculations are staggering.

According to Haberman and Swan, Trump’s CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, called this scenario for regime change “farcical”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said bluntly it was “bullshit” and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, calculated that it was just “hard-selling” by the Israelis because their plans were not “always well-developed”. Yet, as Haberman and Swan conclude, disturbingly, none of these team players dissuaded Trump from enjoining the Netanyahu gambit.

It is hardly surprising that many Israelis are unsettled by a war that lasted far longer than Netanyahu calculated. There have been numerous Iranian missile attacks on civilians, including those in other Gulf States, without any assurances that they will be any safer in future.

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid has said that the current situation is a disaster for Israel. He claimed that Netanyahu had “failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet any of the goals he set himself”.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has shattered President Trump’s claims that the United States has achieved all its most important military goals in this war.

The Iranians insist that they will retain their right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear stockpile. Ending this threat was one of Trump’s most crucial goals, after erroneously stating that last year’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” the nuclear threat.

Causing even greater alarm, the Supreme National Security Council is insisting that it will regulate the future flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Furthermore, Iran wants to impose charges — call it a Trumpian tariff or permanent toll on traffic through the waterway.  

During the war, a toll of about $2 million per oil tanker (paid in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency) has been imposed on some of the ships allowed through the Strait.

Iran’s objective now appears to be to create a lasting mechanism to repair the devastation inflicted by the war.

Strategically speaking, if a toll system persists, it might make Iran one of the richest nations in the Gulf region. It would certainly drive up the cost of a barrel of oil, given that 20 per cent of the world’s supply usually passes by Iran and Oman, which is also involved in seeking this toll arrangement.

Before the start of the Iran war, oil tankers and other shipping moved freely through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. If Trump were to accept Iran’s unique geographic claim of now controlling this vital sea lane, it would amount to one of the greatest strategic "own goals" in American history.

The Iranians are aware that the United States still has three aircraft carriers, supporting vessels, numerous aircraft, marines and special operation forces at the edge of this warzone.

Iran wants assurances that it will not be attacked again by the United States or Israel, that it will be paid reparations and that the sanctions imposed in various forms for more than four decades would be lifted.

In one of the demands most unlikely to be met, Iran also seeks the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from bases in the Gulf States.

There clearly is a chasm between Iran’s version of a ten-point plan and the United States offering of a 15-point plan. We should still expect extremely difficult, protracted negotiations if Iran and the U.S. take up Pakistan’s invitation for direct talks in Islamabad.

After threatening to end civilisation in Iran, it is just like Donald Trump to declare in his next social media post that 'this is a big day for World Peace':

Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough! Likewise, so has everyone else!...There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just “hanging around” in order to make sure everything goes well. I feel confident that it will. Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!

~ President Donald Trump 

As his behaviour has become increasingly maddening, there are renewed calls by Democrats for a third attempt to impeach Trump.

Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts estimated that there were now more than 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives and some 20 in the Senate willing to vote for impeachment.

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont declared that Trump’s impulsive action in launching this war had caused grievous damage to Iranian civilians, including attacks on 60 hospitals, 44 schools and also on desalination plants on which the entire population depended.

Yes, the Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of its protesting citizens since last Christmas and brutal executions of political opponents have continued.

Five weeks of the Iranian war have claimed the lives of thousands more innocent civilians, including the appalling slaughter of children in Iran and Lebanon. Thirteen U.S. military personnel have also gone home in coffins. This cannot be swept away by Trump’s attempts to shift blame.

An unstable President, his chaotic leadership, tactical errors, profane outbursts and damage to U.S. credibility are combining to energise more American citizens to express their outrage.

What have they been doing, you may ask?

The truth is that only next November’s midterm U.S. elections hold any possibility of curbing Trump’s willingness to use American military power at whim.

Journalist, author and filmmaker Dr Jeff McMullen AM is a patron of the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) and the First People’s Disability Network (FPDN), both of which officially support the "Yes" campaign. He is an ambassador for NOFASD Australia.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/grading-albaneses-address-to-the-nation-a-fail-must-do-better-next-time,20903?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 12:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/grading-albaneses-address-to-the-nation-a-fail-must-do-better-next-time,20903?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Universities have taught rhetoric since Ancient Greek times, persuasive or dissuasive oratory skills being an essential part of the successful leader's tool kit. Alas, Anthony Albanese's underwhelming Address to the Nation failed to hit its mark. Dr Michael Galvin explains how the PM and his speechwriter got it so wrong. 

THERE IS A REASON why rhetoric has been taught in universities since Ancient Greek times. Persuading people of your point of view, or dissuading them of theirs, is a more durable way of getting things done in public life than killing them or being taken out oneself.

Oratory has always been an essential part of the successful leader’s tool kit, and still is. Witness the dozens of articles analysing the brilliance of Barack Obama’s rhetorical style in his speeches.

Alas, Albanese is no Obama, and nowhere was this more obvious than in his underwhelming Address to the Nation the other night. The purpose of this article is to offer a close and critical reading of Albanese’s speech. Those of us who want him to succeed for however long he stays Prime Minister also need him to make better speeches. Repelling the rancid jingoism of Far-Right populism will demand arguing persuasively in the public square, not dismissing One Nation's voters as “deplorables”.

Lest this negative review of Albanese’s speech be seen as a tacit sign of support for the orange autocrat in the White House or Tarzan Angus Taylor closer to home, it is enough to say that Trump’s speech is execrable, and the latter is so addicted to out of date cliches and nostrums that the possibility that Taylor will ever utter a thought of either subtlety or originality seems more remote with every passing day.

But that does not mean that the standards of a Trump or Taylor should measure Albanese. He needs to be far better.

A careful reading of the PM’s address shows that it flouts nearly every rule of rhetoric evident in the Obama playbook. While each of these “faults” in themselves might be seen as trivial, even nitpicking, the cumulative effect was there for all to see: a message that was not inspiring, not motivational, not very clear or coherent, at times disingenuous, and, as an event of public importance, extremely dull and forgettable.

Here are some of the ways that Albanese’s speechwriters let him down.

Word repetition for emphasis. In the first sentence, "we are an optimistic country”. In the second sentence, “…now it’s hard to be positive”. By not repeating the word “optimistic”, the speaker raises the possibility of a different point being made, which is to show awareness that the Australian Government is aware that most Australians are anxious and/or affected adversely by this evolving crisis. This is a distraction because the whole point of the two lines is to stress the same point. A rookie error because the aural, memorable value of repetition of important words for emphasis has been lost.

The third sentence is no better, but for other reasons.

“The war in the Middle East has caused the biggest spike in petrol and diesel prices in history.”

Firstly, using the words “Middle East” is too lazy, disingenuous and euphemistic. It is the American and Israeli attack on Iran that has caused this particular fuel crisis. Or if those truthful words were too direct and courageous to say out loud, he could have at least named the cause as a military conflict between Iran and the United States/Israel. Why not say so? It’s what everyone knows anyway. And finishing the sentence with “in history” might be true, but so what? The phrase carries no emotional or substantive weight, and also gestures, wrongly, towards the many thousands of years of “history” when the price of oil would have been meaningless.

A couple of sentences later, the PM says that we are seeing these higher prices “at the servo and at the supermarket”. Why this lapse into Aussie slang? 

This, and the use of “truckies” and “doing it tough” in the next sentence, suggests a desire to identify with the common man (and woman), which feels forced and not entirely genuine. Stressing his old-style Aussie working-class credentials might be appropriate in some circumstances, but not when speaking to and on behalf of the whole nation in an extraordinary moment of crisis.

Yes, Albanese might prefer to ape the style of “unvarnished speech” as part of his identity, but he is a graduate of Sydney University, not a truckie from Temora living in the 1950s.

There is also sloppy logic evident throughout the whole speech, such as this sentence:

“And I understand farmers and truckies, small businesses and families are doing it tough.”

This sentence offends against a basic law of rhetoric when it comes to using or naming lists. The principle with lists is to only use commensurate entities. For example, “apples, oranges and pineapples” is coherent; but “apples, oranges and fruit” or “potatoes, peas and vegetables” are incoherent, for obvious reasons. In the PM’s sentence, this illogicality occurs not once but twice in the same four-item list. Both “small businesses” and “families” are categories that also include many, if not most, farmers and truck drivers.

Another failure in the speech is the high number of incomplete sentences. Take the pseudosentence:

“Leaders from both sides of politics, from right around the country, working together to keep Australia moving.”

A sentence requires a principal clause because, without such a clause, the meaning of the words is not complete in itself. A sentence is meant to be a group of words that makes sense on its own. This example does not make sense because it points to an assertion that is not there. Working at what exactly? The point is left hanging, even if implied.

In a very short speech, there are no fewer than nine examples of such non-sentences. Such carelessness is a major contributor to why it is very hard to know what the point of the speech was, and why it was immediately panned, not just by Albanese’s opponents, but by anyone hoping to take away both some confidence in his leadership and a clear message about the facts of the matter.

Another problem. The careless references to time frames added to this lack of clarity about basic facts. Are we talking about the present, the short term, the medium term, or the long term? Or all of the above? Who would know?

Some of the time frame references in the speech include: "…for months”; “in these uncertain times”; “in the period ahead”; “over the long term”; “the next three months”; “over coming weeks”; “the months ahead”; “uncertain times”; and in the final clause, “always”. Not a single formulation is used more than once.

Jumbled on top of one another, these time references suggest a refusal to think through the details of future planning and scenarios or a deliberate attempt to remain opaque about plans for the future. The takeaway is that it was a bit of both: a carelessly constructed speech, nevertheless intended to set the scene for a much more draconian one in the next month or two.

There are several more ways the PM’s address fails the basic standards of speechwriting but does this really matter? Yes. The oratorical ability of our leaders does matter. Their words matter immensely. After all, it’s all they really have at their disposal. Words either precede their actions or must come after to explain them.

It is hoped that Albanese’s office takes on board fair criticism of his seriously underwhelming address to the nation, and adjusts accordingly and quickly. 

He will need every possible oratorical skill to inform and persuade the new legions of One Nation voters of the errors of their ways. Ridiculing them, ignoring them or thinking it is just a Coalition problem is not going to cut it. As SA Premier Malinauskas was acutely aware on the night of the recent SA Election, Labor may have won by a country mile, but the biggest swings to One Nation occurred in the poorest suburbs of Adelaide and regional areas.

Incidentally, Malinauskas won widespread praise for his speech in part because, unlike the PM, he got the rhetorical style and substance right.

 

Dr Michael Galvin is an adjunct fellow at Victoria University and a former media and communications academic at the University of South Australia.

 

 

 

]]>

Universities have taught rhetoric since Ancient Greek times, persuasive or dissuasive oratory skills being an essential part of the successful leader's tool kit. Alas, Anthony Albanese's underwhelming Address to the Nation failed to hit its mark. Dr Michael Galvin explains how the PM and his speechwriter got it so wrong. 

THERE IS A REASON why rhetoric has been taught in universities since Ancient Greek times. Persuading people of your point of view, or dissuading them of theirs, is a more durable way of getting things done in public life than killing them or being taken out oneself.

Oratory has always been an essential part of the successful leader’s tool kit, and still is. Witness the dozens of articles analysing the brilliance of Barack Obama’s rhetorical style in his speeches.

Alas, Albanese is no Obama, and nowhere was this more obvious than in his underwhelming Address to the Nation the other night. The purpose of this article is to offer a close and critical reading of Albanese’s speech. Those of us who want him to succeed for however long he stays Prime Minister also need him to make better speeches. Repelling the rancid jingoism of Far-Right populism will demand arguing persuasively in the public square, not dismissing One Nation's voters as “deplorables”.

Lest this negative review of Albanese’s speech be seen as a tacit sign of support for the orange autocrat in the White House or Tarzan Angus Taylor closer to home, it is enough to say that Trump’s speech is execrable, and the latter is so addicted to out of date cliches and nostrums that the possibility that Taylor will ever utter a thought of either subtlety or originality seems more remote with every passing day.

But that does not mean that the standards of a Trump or Taylor should measure Albanese. He needs to be far better.

A careful reading of the PM’s address shows that it flouts nearly every rule of rhetoric evident in the Obama playbook. While each of these “faults” in themselves might be seen as trivial, even nitpicking, the cumulative effect was there for all to see: a message that was not inspiring, not motivational, not very clear or coherent, at times disingenuous, and, as an event of public importance, extremely dull and forgettable.

Here are some of the ways that Albanese’s speechwriters let him down.

Word repetition for emphasis. In the first sentence, "we are an optimistic country”. In the second sentence, “…now it’s hard to be positive”. By not repeating the word “optimistic”, the speaker raises the possibility of a different point being made, which is to show awareness that the Australian Government is aware that most Australians are anxious and/or affected adversely by this evolving crisis. This is a distraction because the whole point of the two lines is to stress the same point. A rookie error because the aural, memorable value of repetition of important words for emphasis has been lost.

The third sentence is no better, but for other reasons.

“The war in the Middle East has caused the biggest spike in petrol and diesel prices in history.”

Firstly, using the words “Middle East” is too lazy, disingenuous and euphemistic. It is the American and Israeli attack on Iran that has caused this particular fuel crisis. Or if those truthful words were too direct and courageous to say out loud, he could have at least named the cause as a military conflict between Iran and the United States/Israel. Why not say so? It’s what everyone knows anyway. And finishing the sentence with “in history” might be true, but so what? The phrase carries no emotional or substantive weight, and also gestures, wrongly, towards the many thousands of years of “history” when the price of oil would have been meaningless.

A couple of sentences later, the PM says that we are seeing these higher prices “at the servo and at the supermarket”. Why this lapse into Aussie slang? 

This, and the use of “truckies” and “doing it tough” in the next sentence, suggests a desire to identify with the common man (and woman), which feels forced and not entirely genuine. Stressing his old-style Aussie working-class credentials might be appropriate in some circumstances, but not when speaking to and on behalf of the whole nation in an extraordinary moment of crisis.

Yes, Albanese might prefer to ape the style of “unvarnished speech” as part of his identity, but he is a graduate of Sydney University, not a truckie from Temora living in the 1950s.

There is also sloppy logic evident throughout the whole speech, such as this sentence:

“And I understand farmers and truckies, small businesses and families are doing it tough.”

This sentence offends against a basic law of rhetoric when it comes to using or naming lists. The principle with lists is to only use commensurate entities. For example, “apples, oranges and pineapples” is coherent; but “apples, oranges and fruit” or “potatoes, peas and vegetables” are incoherent, for obvious reasons. In the PM’s sentence, this illogicality occurs not once but twice in the same four-item list. Both “small businesses” and “families” are categories that also include many, if not most, farmers and truck drivers.

Another failure in the speech is the high number of incomplete sentences. Take the pseudosentence:

“Leaders from both sides of politics, from right around the country, working together to keep Australia moving.”

A sentence requires a principal clause because, without such a clause, the meaning of the words is not complete in itself. A sentence is meant to be a group of words that makes sense on its own. This example does not make sense because it points to an assertion that is not there. Working at what exactly? The point is left hanging, even if implied.

In a very short speech, there are no fewer than nine examples of such non-sentences. Such carelessness is a major contributor to why it is very hard to know what the point of the speech was, and why it was immediately panned, not just by Albanese’s opponents, but by anyone hoping to take away both some confidence in his leadership and a clear message about the facts of the matter.

Another problem. The careless references to time frames added to this lack of clarity about basic facts. Are we talking about the present, the short term, the medium term, or the long term? Or all of the above? Who would know?

Some of the time frame references in the speech include: "…for months”; “in these uncertain times”; “in the period ahead”; “over the long term”; “the next three months”; “over coming weeks”; “the months ahead”; “uncertain times”; and in the final clause, “always”. Not a single formulation is used more than once.

Jumbled on top of one another, these time references suggest a refusal to think through the details of future planning and scenarios or a deliberate attempt to remain opaque about plans for the future. The takeaway is that it was a bit of both: a carelessly constructed speech, nevertheless intended to set the scene for a much more draconian one in the next month or two.

There are several more ways the PM’s address fails the basic standards of speechwriting but does this really matter? Yes. The oratorical ability of our leaders does matter. Their words matter immensely. After all, it’s all they really have at their disposal. Words either precede their actions or must come after to explain them.

It is hoped that Albanese’s office takes on board fair criticism of his seriously underwhelming address to the nation, and adjusts accordingly and quickly. 

He will need every possible oratorical skill to inform and persuade the new legions of One Nation voters of the errors of their ways. Ridiculing them, ignoring them or thinking it is just a Coalition problem is not going to cut it. As SA Premier Malinauskas was acutely aware on the night of the recent SA Election, Labor may have won by a country mile, but the biggest swings to One Nation occurred in the poorest suburbs of Adelaide and regional areas.

Incidentally, Malinauskas won widespread praise for his speech in part because, unlike the PM, he got the rhetorical style and substance right.

 

Dr Michael Galvin is an adjunct fellow at Victoria University and a former media and communications academic at the University of South Australia.

 

 

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/why-service-businesses-are-rebuilding-operations-around-ai-workflows,20908?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 03:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/why-service-businesses-are-rebuilding-operations-around-ai-workflows,20908?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Service businesses are moving beyond individual AI tools and redesigning how work flows. Discover why connected AI workflows are the real competitive edge.

For years, digital improvement inside service businesses often meant adding one more tool to the stack. A new booking app here, a CRM there, maybe an invoicing platform or a chatbot layered on top of an already fragmented operation. On paper, that looked like progress. In practice, many businesses simply ended up with more tabs open, more notifications, and more places where work could stall.

What is changing now is not just the availability of AI, but the way business owners are thinking about the flow of work itself. Instead of treating software as a set of separate destinations, more operators are looking at how enquiries move, how information gets handed off, where approvals get stuck, and why routine admin still absorbs so many hours each week. That shift matters because the real cost of operational friction is rarely visible in a single system. It shows up in delayed callbacks, duplicated data entry, inconsistent customer follow-up and teams that spend too much time moving information around rather than acting on it.

This is one reason AI is becoming more relevant to service businesses than many people expected. The useful applications are often less dramatic than the headlines suggest. They are not about replacing an entire team or handing the company over to a black-box system. They are about reducing the small interruptions and repetitive tasks that quietly accumulate across quoting, scheduling, inbox triage, customer communication, finance admin and internal reporting. In that sense, the bigger story is not "AI tools" in isolation. It is the emergence of connected workflows that make a business feel faster, tidier and easier to run.

The shift from isolated tools to connected workflows

One of the most common operational problems in small and mid-sized businesses is that software gets adopted function by function. A sales team might use one platform, operations another, finance a third and customer communication a fourth. Each tool may do its individual job reasonably well, but the overall workflow between them is often manual.

That manual layer tends to survive for longer than owners expect. Someone copies details from a web form into a CRM. Someone else chases a missing attachment. A manager forwards an email that should have triggered a task automatically. A team member updates the same customer detail in two systems because the information does not sync cleanly. None of these issues looks catastrophic on its own, but together they create drag.

What makes the current automation wave different is the increasing focus on orchestration rather than simple task digitisation. Businesses are not only asking whether a tool can perform one function. They are asking whether the overall process can move from trigger to outcome with fewer manual handoffs. That is where AI starts to matter. It can classify, route, summarise, extract, draft and prioritise, which means workflows that used to depend on constant low-value human intervention can become much more coherent.

Where manual admin still slows growing teams

The businesses most likely to feel this pressure are not necessarily the largest ones. In many cases, it is growing service companies that suffer most from fragmented admin. They have enough demand to feel the cost of inefficiency, but not always the internal systems maturity to keep operations clean.

The signs are familiar. Enquiries arrive across web forms, phone calls, direct emails and social channels. Quotes take too long because information has to be gathered manually. Jobs get booked, but supporting documents are missing. Invoices are sent, but reminders depend on someone remembering to chase them. Reporting becomes a monthly scramble rather than a live operational view.

These are not glamorous problems, but they affect margin, customer experience and staff energy. They also tend to create hidden reliance on certain team members who "know how things work". Once a business reaches that point, scale becomes harder because knowledge lives in habits and inboxes rather than in a reliable process.

This is why more operators are moving beyond one-off software fixes and looking for a more joined-up approach. In many cases, the question is no longer whether AI belongs in the business, but where it can reduce friction without creating new complexity. That usually means starting with workflows that are repetitive, rules-based and time-sensitive, then designing systems around how the work actually moves.

Why small businesses are rethinking customer response times

Customer expectations have changed faster than many internal systems. People are now used to quick acknowledgement, clear next steps and fewer dead ends when they contact a business. For service operators, that creates pressure not only to respond faster, but to respond consistently.

This is one area where workflow automation becomes strategically important. Fast response is not just a communications issue. It often depends on whether incoming messages are categorised correctly, whether a request reaches the right person, whether the relevant details are captured at the start and whether the next action is triggered automatically. If any of those links is weak, the whole experience feels slower.

AI can help here in a practical way. It can triage enquiries, summarise customer intent, detect urgency, draft replies, extract key job details, and push data into the right downstream system. The commercial value is not abstract. Better workflow design can mean fewer lost leads, cleaner handovers and less time spent dealing with preventable confusion.

That does not mean every business needs the same solution, or that every process should be automated. But it does explain why service businesses are increasingly interested in implementation partners that understand operations, not just software features. An effective AI automation agency is usually not valuable, because it installs more tools. It is valuable because it helps reshape the work between those tools.

What makes automation useful rather than disruptive

A lot of resistance to automation is sensible. Businesses have seen too many technology projects that promised transformation and delivered disruption. Systems that are difficult to maintain, automations that break at edge cases and interfaces that staff quietly work around can all make a business more fragile rather than more efficient.

The difference between useful automation and disruptive automation usually comes down to three things: process clarity, practical scope, and maintainability. If the process is messy and undocumented, automation tends to expose chaos rather than solve it. If the scope is too ambitious, the system becomes brittle. And if no one can understand or update the workflow later, the business becomes dependent on a fragile setup.

This is why the most successful implementations are often narrower than expected at first. Instead of redesigning everything at once, they focus on high-friction processes with clear inputs and outputs: inbound lead handling, quote preparation, appointment confirmation, invoice routing, internal summaries, approval steps, and document handling. Once those systems prove reliable, businesses can extend the model elsewhere.

The operational mindset matters as much as the technology. AI is most useful when it supports structured decisions, reduces repetitive handling, and gives teams cleaner information to work with. It becomes less useful when it is forced into processes that have not been thought through.

How Australian operators are approaching AI more pragmatically

There is often a gap between the global conversation around AI and the way Australian businesses are actually adopting it. The most practical operators are not chasing novelty for its own sake. They are looking at labour constraints, admin overhead, service consistency and profitability. In other words, they are applying AI to ordinary business pressure points.

That pragmatism is healthy. It reduces the temptation to treat AI as a branding exercise and shifts attention back to outcomes. Does the business respond faster? Are fewer leads slipping through? Is the finance process cleaner? Can the team spend more time on judgement-based work and less on repetitive admin? Those are better questions than whether the system sounds sophisticated.

The businesses likely to benefit most from this shift are the ones willing to treat operations as a design problem, rather than a collection of habits. AI may be the catalyst, but workflow thinking is the bigger change. Once owners begin to see how information moves across their business, it becomes easier to spot where manual effort is adding value and where it is simply compensating for bad process design.

That is why the current moment feels different from earlier waves of digital adoption. The tools are more capable, but the real opportunity lies in how they are combined. Service businesses are not just buying software. Increasingly, they are rebuilding the pathways through which work gets done.

Workflow design is the real competitive edge

The strongest businesses are rarely the ones with the most apps. They are the ones where work moves clearly, handoffs happen smoothly and staff do not spend half the day stitching systems together. AI is not solving every operational problem, but it is accelerating a broader shift toward workflow design as a competitive advantage.

For service businesses under pressure to respond faster, stay organised and protect margin, that makes connected automation less of a trend and more of an operating decision.

]]>

Service businesses are moving beyond individual AI tools and redesigning how work flows. Discover why connected AI workflows are the real competitive edge.

For years, digital improvement inside service businesses often meant adding one more tool to the stack. A new booking app here, a CRM there, maybe an invoicing platform or a chatbot layered on top of an already fragmented operation. On paper, that looked like progress. In practice, many businesses simply ended up with more tabs open, more notifications, and more places where work could stall.

What is changing now is not just the availability of AI, but the way business owners are thinking about the flow of work itself. Instead of treating software as a set of separate destinations, more operators are looking at how enquiries move, how information gets handed off, where approvals get stuck, and why routine admin still absorbs so many hours each week. That shift matters because the real cost of operational friction is rarely visible in a single system. It shows up in delayed callbacks, duplicated data entry, inconsistent customer follow-up and teams that spend too much time moving information around rather than acting on it.

This is one reason AI is becoming more relevant to service businesses than many people expected. The useful applications are often less dramatic than the headlines suggest. They are not about replacing an entire team or handing the company over to a black-box system. They are about reducing the small interruptions and repetitive tasks that quietly accumulate across quoting, scheduling, inbox triage, customer communication, finance admin and internal reporting. In that sense, the bigger story is not "AI tools" in isolation. It is the emergence of connected workflows that make a business feel faster, tidier and easier to run.

The shift from isolated tools to connected workflows

One of the most common operational problems in small and mid-sized businesses is that software gets adopted function by function. A sales team might use one platform, operations another, finance a third and customer communication a fourth. Each tool may do its individual job reasonably well, but the overall workflow between them is often manual.

That manual layer tends to survive for longer than owners expect. Someone copies details from a web form into a CRM. Someone else chases a missing attachment. A manager forwards an email that should have triggered a task automatically. A team member updates the same customer detail in two systems because the information does not sync cleanly. None of these issues looks catastrophic on its own, but together they create drag.

What makes the current automation wave different is the increasing focus on orchestration rather than simple task digitisation. Businesses are not only asking whether a tool can perform one function. They are asking whether the overall process can move from trigger to outcome with fewer manual handoffs. That is where AI starts to matter. It can classify, route, summarise, extract, draft and prioritise, which means workflows that used to depend on constant low-value human intervention can become much more coherent.

Where manual admin still slows growing teams

The businesses most likely to feel this pressure are not necessarily the largest ones. In many cases, it is growing service companies that suffer most from fragmented admin. They have enough demand to feel the cost of inefficiency, but not always the internal systems maturity to keep operations clean.

The signs are familiar. Enquiries arrive across web forms, phone calls, direct emails and social channels. Quotes take too long because information has to be gathered manually. Jobs get booked, but supporting documents are missing. Invoices are sent, but reminders depend on someone remembering to chase them. Reporting becomes a monthly scramble rather than a live operational view.

These are not glamorous problems, but they affect margin, customer experience and staff energy. They also tend to create hidden reliance on certain team members who "know how things work". Once a business reaches that point, scale becomes harder because knowledge lives in habits and inboxes rather than in a reliable process.

This is why more operators are moving beyond one-off software fixes and looking for a more joined-up approach. In many cases, the question is no longer whether AI belongs in the business, but where it can reduce friction without creating new complexity. That usually means starting with workflows that are repetitive, rules-based and time-sensitive, then designing systems around how the work actually moves.

Why small businesses are rethinking customer response times

Customer expectations have changed faster than many internal systems. People are now used to quick acknowledgement, clear next steps and fewer dead ends when they contact a business. For service operators, that creates pressure not only to respond faster, but to respond consistently.

This is one area where workflow automation becomes strategically important. Fast response is not just a communications issue. It often depends on whether incoming messages are categorised correctly, whether a request reaches the right person, whether the relevant details are captured at the start and whether the next action is triggered automatically. If any of those links is weak, the whole experience feels slower.

AI can help here in a practical way. It can triage enquiries, summarise customer intent, detect urgency, draft replies, extract key job details, and push data into the right downstream system. The commercial value is not abstract. Better workflow design can mean fewer lost leads, cleaner handovers and less time spent dealing with preventable confusion.

That does not mean every business needs the same solution, or that every process should be automated. But it does explain why service businesses are increasingly interested in implementation partners that understand operations, not just software features. An effective AI automation agency is usually not valuable, because it installs more tools. It is valuable because it helps reshape the work between those tools.

What makes automation useful rather than disruptive

A lot of resistance to automation is sensible. Businesses have seen too many technology projects that promised transformation and delivered disruption. Systems that are difficult to maintain, automations that break at edge cases and interfaces that staff quietly work around can all make a business more fragile rather than more efficient.

The difference between useful automation and disruptive automation usually comes down to three things: process clarity, practical scope, and maintainability. If the process is messy and undocumented, automation tends to expose chaos rather than solve it. If the scope is too ambitious, the system becomes brittle. And if no one can understand or update the workflow later, the business becomes dependent on a fragile setup.

This is why the most successful implementations are often narrower than expected at first. Instead of redesigning everything at once, they focus on high-friction processes with clear inputs and outputs: inbound lead handling, quote preparation, appointment confirmation, invoice routing, internal summaries, approval steps, and document handling. Once those systems prove reliable, businesses can extend the model elsewhere.

The operational mindset matters as much as the technology. AI is most useful when it supports structured decisions, reduces repetitive handling, and gives teams cleaner information to work with. It becomes less useful when it is forced into processes that have not been thought through.

How Australian operators are approaching AI more pragmatically

There is often a gap between the global conversation around AI and the way Australian businesses are actually adopting it. The most practical operators are not chasing novelty for its own sake. They are looking at labour constraints, admin overhead, service consistency and profitability. In other words, they are applying AI to ordinary business pressure points.

That pragmatism is healthy. It reduces the temptation to treat AI as a branding exercise and shifts attention back to outcomes. Does the business respond faster? Are fewer leads slipping through? Is the finance process cleaner? Can the team spend more time on judgement-based work and less on repetitive admin? Those are better questions than whether the system sounds sophisticated.

The businesses likely to benefit most from this shift are the ones willing to treat operations as a design problem, rather than a collection of habits. AI may be the catalyst, but workflow thinking is the bigger change. Once owners begin to see how information moves across their business, it becomes easier to spot where manual effort is adding value and where it is simply compensating for bad process design.

That is why the current moment feels different from earlier waves of digital adoption. The tools are more capable, but the real opportunity lies in how they are combined. Service businesses are not just buying software. Increasingly, they are rebuilding the pathways through which work gets done.

Workflow design is the real competitive edge

The strongest businesses are rarely the ones with the most apps. They are the ones where work moves clearly, handoffs happen smoothly and staff do not spend half the day stitching systems together. AI is not solving every operational problem, but it is accelerating a broader shift toward workflow design as a competitive advantage.

For service businesses under pressure to respond faster, stay organised and protect margin, that makes connected automation less of a trend and more of an operating decision.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/7-best-nail-fungus-treatments-that-actually-work-doctor-recommended-picks,20907?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 02:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/7-best-nail-fungus-treatments-that-actually-work-doctor-recommended-picks,20907?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Nail fungus, medically known as onychomycosis, affects millions of people worldwide and is one of the most persistent nail conditions.

It typically starts as a small white or yellow spot under the nail and gradually spreads deeper, causing thick, brittle, discolored, and sometimes painful nails. Left untreated, the infection can worsen and even spread to other nails or surrounding skin.

Dermatologists often recommend topical antifungal treatments, medicated nail lacquers, and oral medications depending on the severity of the infection. Over-the-counter solutions healing natural oils  have also become increasingly effective, thanks to clinically proven antifungal ingredients, such as terbinafine, tolnaftate, undecylenic acid and ciclopirox, which help inhibit fungal growth and improve nail appearance over time.

1. H-nail fungus formula (best overall nail fungus treatment)

H-nail fungus formula Fostands out as one of the most comprehensive topical solutions designed to target nail fungus directly at its source. The formula is created to penetrate beneath the nail surface, where fungal organisms typically grow and thrive. By addressing the infection at this deeper level, the best nail fungus treatment aims to eliminate the root cause rather than just improving the nail’s appearance.

One of the biggest advantages of H-Nail Fungus is its dual-action approach. While the antifungal ingredients work to stop fungal growth, the supportive components help repair nail damage caused by infection. Over time, this combination encourages healthier nail regeneration, reducing discoloration, brittleness, and thickening.

The easy-to-apply liquid formula also makes daily treatment convenient. For individuals dealing with persistent fungal infections on either toenails or fingernails, H-Nail Fungus offers a balanced solution that focuses on fungus elimination, nail restoration, and long-term nail health.

2. Fungi-nail maximum strength antifungal solution

Fungi-Nail Maximum Strength Antifungal Solution is one of the most widely recognized over-the-counter treatments for nail fungus. Its primary active ingredient, tolnaftate, has long been used in antifungal medications to prevent fungal growth and stop infections from spreading.

What makes this product particularly convenient is its precision pen applicator, which allows users to apply the treatment directly to the affected area without wasting product. This design is especially helpful for targeting fungus around the edges of the nail, or between toes where infections often begin.

While consistent use is necessary to see results, many users find that Fungi-Nail helps slow fungal growth and improves nail clarity over time. It is also commonly used for treating related fungal conditions, such as athlete’s foot, making it a versatile option in many antifungal treatment routines.

3. Kerasal multi-purpose nail repair

Kerasal Multi-Purpose Nail Repair focuses less on killing fungus directly and more on restoring damaged nails that have been affected by fungal infections. Its formula works by softening hardened keratin, which can accumulate under the nail during fungal growth and lead to thickened or distorted nails.

This treatment is particularly useful for people dealing with brittle, rough, or discolored nails. By hydrating the nail plate and improving its texture, Kerasal helps nails look healthier while new growth gradually replaces damaged areas.

Many dermatologists recommend combining nail repair products like Kerasal with antifungal treatments. This dual strategy addresses both the infection and the visible nail damage, helping restore nails to a more natural appearance over time.

4. Opti-nail fungal nail repair

Opti-Nail Fungal Nail Repair is designed to tackle fungal infections, while also improving nail appearance. The formula combines antifungal agents with nail conditioning ingredients, which help support the nail’s natural recovery process.

One of the key benefits of Opti-Nail is its focus on preventing recurrence. Fungal infections often return if the underlying conditions remain favorable for fungal growth. By maintaining a healthier nail environment, Opti-Nail aims to reduce the likelihood of reinfection.

With regular application, users often notice improvements in nail clarity, reduced discoloration, and stronger nail structure. The treatment works best when used consistently alongside proper foot hygiene and preventive care.

5. Dr Scholl’s fungal nail revitaliser

Dr. Scholl’s is a trusted brand in foot care, and its Fungal Nail Revitalizer is designed specifically for improving nail health during fungal infections. The formula works to reduce discoloration while supporting the nail’s natural repair process.

One of the standout features of this treatment is its clinically tested approach to nail restoration. Instead of simply masking symptoms, the formula focuses on improving nail texture and encouraging healthier growth.

This product is often recommended for individuals in the early stages of nail fungus or those experiencing mild nail damage. Over time, regular use may help nails regain a clearer and more natural appearance.

6. NONYX nail clarifying gel

NONYX Nail Clarifying Gel takes a unique approach to nail fungus treatment. Instead of relying solely on antifungal chemicals, it works by breaking down keratin debris that accumulates under infected nails.

Fungal organisms thrive in this keratin buildup, which protects them from many topical treatments. By dissolving this debris, NONYX helps expose the fungus and improve the effectiveness of antifungal therapies used alongside it.

Dermatologists often recommend NONYX for thickened or heavily damaged nails. By clearing the buildup and restoring a cleaner nail surface, the gel can improve nail thickness, clarity, and overall appearance.

7. Lamisil AT antifungal cream

Lamisil AT is a well-known antifungal treatment that contains terbinafine, a powerful ingredient commonly used to treat fungal infections of the skin and nails. Terbinafine works by interfering with the fungus’s cell membrane, effectively stopping its growth.

Although it is primarily marketed for athlete’s foot and other skin infections, Lamisil can also help treat fungal infections around the nail area. This makes it useful when nail fungus spreads to the surrounding skin.

Because it comes from a trusted pharmaceutical brand, Lamisil AT remains a reliable option for individuals looking for a clinically proven antifungal treatment.

8. How to choose the best nail fungus treatment

Choosing the right nail fungus treatment depends on the severity of the infection, the type of product and the active ingredients used. Dermatologists often recommend treatments containing clinically proven antifungal compounds that directly target fungal growth.

Some of the most effective ingredients include undecylenic acid, terbinafine, tolnaftate and ciclopirox. These compounds work by disrupting the fungal life cycle, preventing it from multiplying and spreading.

Consistency is equally important. Nail fungus treatments typically require several months of continuous use because infected nails must grow out completely before healthy nails replace them. Maintaining proper foot hygiene, keeping nails trimmed and avoiding moist environments can also help speed up recovery and prevent reinfection.

Follow Independent Australia on Twitter @independentaus and on Facebook HERE.

 

]]>

Nail fungus, medically known as onychomycosis, affects millions of people worldwide and is one of the most persistent nail conditions.

It typically starts as a small white or yellow spot under the nail and gradually spreads deeper, causing thick, brittle, discolored, and sometimes painful nails. Left untreated, the infection can worsen and even spread to other nails or surrounding skin.

Dermatologists often recommend topical antifungal treatments, medicated nail lacquers, and oral medications depending on the severity of the infection. Over-the-counter solutions healing natural oils  have also become increasingly effective, thanks to clinically proven antifungal ingredients, such as terbinafine, tolnaftate, undecylenic acid and ciclopirox, which help inhibit fungal growth and improve nail appearance over time.

1. H-nail fungus formula (best overall nail fungus treatment)

H-nail fungus formula Fostands out as one of the most comprehensive topical solutions designed to target nail fungus directly at its source. The formula is created to penetrate beneath the nail surface, where fungal organisms typically grow and thrive. By addressing the infection at this deeper level, the best nail fungus treatment aims to eliminate the root cause rather than just improving the nail’s appearance.

One of the biggest advantages of H-Nail Fungus is its dual-action approach. While the antifungal ingredients work to stop fungal growth, the supportive components help repair nail damage caused by infection. Over time, this combination encourages healthier nail regeneration, reducing discoloration, brittleness, and thickening.

The easy-to-apply liquid formula also makes daily treatment convenient. For individuals dealing with persistent fungal infections on either toenails or fingernails, H-Nail Fungus offers a balanced solution that focuses on fungus elimination, nail restoration, and long-term nail health.

2. Fungi-nail maximum strength antifungal solution

Fungi-Nail Maximum Strength Antifungal Solution is one of the most widely recognized over-the-counter treatments for nail fungus. Its primary active ingredient, tolnaftate, has long been used in antifungal medications to prevent fungal growth and stop infections from spreading.

What makes this product particularly convenient is its precision pen applicator, which allows users to apply the treatment directly to the affected area without wasting product. This design is especially helpful for targeting fungus around the edges of the nail, or between toes where infections often begin.

While consistent use is necessary to see results, many users find that Fungi-Nail helps slow fungal growth and improves nail clarity over time. It is also commonly used for treating related fungal conditions, such as athlete’s foot, making it a versatile option in many antifungal treatment routines.

3. Kerasal multi-purpose nail repair

Kerasal Multi-Purpose Nail Repair focuses less on killing fungus directly and more on restoring damaged nails that have been affected by fungal infections. Its formula works by softening hardened keratin, which can accumulate under the nail during fungal growth and lead to thickened or distorted nails.

This treatment is particularly useful for people dealing with brittle, rough, or discolored nails. By hydrating the nail plate and improving its texture, Kerasal helps nails look healthier while new growth gradually replaces damaged areas.

Many dermatologists recommend combining nail repair products like Kerasal with antifungal treatments. This dual strategy addresses both the infection and the visible nail damage, helping restore nails to a more natural appearance over time.

4. Opti-nail fungal nail repair

Opti-Nail Fungal Nail Repair is designed to tackle fungal infections, while also improving nail appearance. The formula combines antifungal agents with nail conditioning ingredients, which help support the nail’s natural recovery process.

One of the key benefits of Opti-Nail is its focus on preventing recurrence. Fungal infections often return if the underlying conditions remain favorable for fungal growth. By maintaining a healthier nail environment, Opti-Nail aims to reduce the likelihood of reinfection.

With regular application, users often notice improvements in nail clarity, reduced discoloration, and stronger nail structure. The treatment works best when used consistently alongside proper foot hygiene and preventive care.

5. Dr Scholl’s fungal nail revitaliser

Dr. Scholl’s is a trusted brand in foot care, and its Fungal Nail Revitalizer is designed specifically for improving nail health during fungal infections. The formula works to reduce discoloration while supporting the nail’s natural repair process.

One of the standout features of this treatment is its clinically tested approach to nail restoration. Instead of simply masking symptoms, the formula focuses on improving nail texture and encouraging healthier growth.

This product is often recommended for individuals in the early stages of nail fungus or those experiencing mild nail damage. Over time, regular use may help nails regain a clearer and more natural appearance.

6. NONYX nail clarifying gel

NONYX Nail Clarifying Gel takes a unique approach to nail fungus treatment. Instead of relying solely on antifungal chemicals, it works by breaking down keratin debris that accumulates under infected nails.

Fungal organisms thrive in this keratin buildup, which protects them from many topical treatments. By dissolving this debris, NONYX helps expose the fungus and improve the effectiveness of antifungal therapies used alongside it.

Dermatologists often recommend NONYX for thickened or heavily damaged nails. By clearing the buildup and restoring a cleaner nail surface, the gel can improve nail thickness, clarity, and overall appearance.

7. Lamisil AT antifungal cream

Lamisil AT is a well-known antifungal treatment that contains terbinafine, a powerful ingredient commonly used to treat fungal infections of the skin and nails. Terbinafine works by interfering with the fungus’s cell membrane, effectively stopping its growth.

Although it is primarily marketed for athlete’s foot and other skin infections, Lamisil can also help treat fungal infections around the nail area. This makes it useful when nail fungus spreads to the surrounding skin.

Because it comes from a trusted pharmaceutical brand, Lamisil AT remains a reliable option for individuals looking for a clinically proven antifungal treatment.

8. How to choose the best nail fungus treatment

Choosing the right nail fungus treatment depends on the severity of the infection, the type of product and the active ingredients used. Dermatologists often recommend treatments containing clinically proven antifungal compounds that directly target fungal growth.

Some of the most effective ingredients include undecylenic acid, terbinafine, tolnaftate and ciclopirox. These compounds work by disrupting the fungal life cycle, preventing it from multiplying and spreading.

Consistency is equally important. Nail fungus treatments typically require several months of continuous use because infected nails must grow out completely before healthy nails replace them. Maintaining proper foot hygiene, keeping nails trimmed and avoiding moist environments can also help speed up recovery and prevent reinfection.

Follow Independent Australia on Twitter @independentaus and on Facebook HERE.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-no-nonsense-mens-grooming-and-wellness-guide-for-australians,20906?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 09 Apr 2026 01:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/the-no-nonsense-mens-grooming-and-wellness-guide-for-australians,20906?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Australian men are paying more attention to how they look and feel than at any point in recent memory.

That shift is not about vanity. It is about recognising that showing up well in work, relationships and daily life requires a baseline level of care that goes beyond a quick shower and a haircut every few weeks.

The challenge is that most grooming and wellness advice directed at men either overcomplicates things or undersells them. This guide takes a practical approach. It covers the habits, products and professional appointments that make a genuine difference, without requiring an elaborate routine or a significant investment of time.

Whether you are starting from scratch or looking to sharpen what you already do, the areas covered here give you a clear framework for looking and feeling your best year round.

Dental health: The most overlooked part of men's appearance

A clean, healthy smile is one of the first things people notice and one of the last things most men prioritise. Regular brushing covers the basics, but it does not remove the hardened calculus that builds up over time and it does not catch the early-stage decay or gum changes that only a professional assessment can identify.

The standard recommendation of a check-up every six months exists for good reason. Problems caught early are consistently cheaper, faster and less uncomfortable to treat than those identified after they have had time to develop. For men in Brisbane's East, accessing quality Carindale dental services makes it straightforward to keep that schedule, without having to travel far or work around a complicated booking process.

Beyond check-ups, a few daily habits make a measurable difference. Flossing removes food debris and bacteria from between teeth that a toothbrush cannot reach. Drinking water throughout the day reduces the acidic environment in which decay-causing bacteria thrive. Limiting sugary drinks, including sports drinks and flavoured sparkling water, reduces the frequency of acid attacks on enamel that add up significantly over the years.

Skincare for men: Simple and effective

Men's skin tends to be thicker and oilier than women's, which offers some advantages, but also creates its own set of challenges. Enlarged pores, razor irritation, post-shave sensitivity and UV damage are the most common issues, and all of them respond well to a straightforward routine applied consistently.

A daily routine does not need to be complicated. A cleanser used morning and night removes oil, sweat and product buildup without stripping the skin's moisture barrier. A moisturiser applied after cleansing keeps skin hydrated and reduces the appearance of fine lines over time. A broad-spectrum SPF of at least 30, worn every morning, is the single highest-impact step in any skincare routine for Australian men, given the UV index in most parts of the country.

For men dealing with razor burn or ingrown hairs from shaving, applying a thin layer of post-shave balm or a soothing serum containing niacinamide or centella asiatica reduces inflammation and speeds recovery. Shaving with the grain rather than against it and using a sharp blade rather than an old one reduces the irritation that leads to these issues in the first place.

Exfoliating once or twice a week keeps skin texture even and prevents the pore congestion that leads to breakouts. A simple scrub or a chemical exfoliant containing salicylic acid is enough to make a noticeable difference without adding more than a few minutes to your routine.

Spray tanning: Not just for women

Spray tanning has moved well beyond its association with a single demographic. A growing number of Australian men use it regularly, whether before a formal event, during winter when sun exposure drops off, or simply as part of a grooming routine that prioritises a healthy, even complexion without the UV exposure that comes with sun tanning.

The key to a natural-looking result is product quality and preparation. Exfoliating the skin the day before application, moisturising dry areas like elbows and knees beforehand, and allowing adequate development time all contribute to an even, streak-free outcome. For professionals, offering spray tanning services, using quality spray tan solution, formulated for professional application, produces noticeably better results than generic products, with more natural colour payoff and longer-lasting coverage across different skin types.

For men doing it at home, a gradual tanning moisturiser applied daily is a lower-maintenance alternative that builds colour incrementally and is more forgiving of uneven application than a full spray tan.

Eyewear: A functional accessory that shapes first impressions

Sunglasses serve a practical purpose in Australia where UV exposure is consistently high, but they also function as one of the most visible elements of a man's personal style. The frame you choose communicates a great deal about your aesthetic, which makes it worth investing in a pair that fits your face well and holds up to daily use.

Carrera has maintained a reputation for well-constructed frames with a classic, masculine aesthetic that suits a broad range of face shapes. Men looking to shop Carrera sunglasses online can find a range of styles suited to different face shapes and occasions, from the kind of clean, minimalist frames that work in a professional setting to bolder wraparound styles built for outdoor and active use.

When choosing sunglasses, UV protection should be the baseline requirement rather than a bonus feature. All Australian-compliant sunglasses should meet AS/NZS 1067 standards, with category 3 lenses recommended for general outdoor use and category 4 for high-glare environments. Lens quality affects both optical clarity and long-term eye health, which makes it worth investing in frames from a reputable source, rather than reaching for the cheapest option available.

Fitness: Building a Routine That Holds Up

Regular physical activity is the single most impactful contribution most Australian men can make to how they look and feel. It improves body composition, lifts energy levels, sharpens mental focus, reduces stress and produces changes in skin and posture that no grooming product can replicate.

The most common reason men fall off a fitness routine is that it was too ambitious to maintain alongside work and family commitments. Three to four sessions per week, of 45 to 60 minutes, is a more realistic and sustainable target than a seven-day programme that burns out within a month. A combination of strength training and cardiovascular exercise spread across those sessions covers both body composition and cardiovascular health effectively.

Strength training two to three times per week builds and maintains the muscle mass that naturally declines from the mid-30s onwards. It also improves metabolic rate, bone density, and joint stability in ways that become increasingly important as men age. Compound lifts, such as squats, deadlifts, rows and presses deliver the most return per session, and require no more than three to four sets each to produce results when performed consistently.

Cardiovascular work does not need to be high-intensity to be effective. A 30-minute walk at a brisk pace, a cycle, or a swim provides meaningful cardiovascular and mental health benefits, without the recovery demand of high-intensity interval training. Choosing a form of cardio you actually enjoy makes it far more likely to stick.

Men's health decisions that deserve more attention

Men tend to delay health decisions, particularly those that feel personal or unfamiliar. Two areas where this pattern is especially common are prostate health and reproductive choices, both of which benefit significantly from early and informed action.

Reproductive decisions are not static. Life circumstances change, and choices made at one point do not have to define outcomes permanently. For men who have previously had a vasectomy and are now considering having children, the outcomes from reversal procedures have improved considerably with advances in microsurgical technique. Those exploring vasectomy reversal in Sydney will find that success rates are closely tied to the time elapsed since the original procedure and the experience of the surgeon performing the reversal, making early consultation and specialist selection the most important steps in the process.

Mental health deserves mention in any men's wellness guide. Australian men are statistically less likely to seek help for mental health concerns than women, despite facing comparable rates of anxiety, depression and stress-related conditions. The barriers are well documented but they are not insurmountable. Regular exercise, adequate sleep, social connection and limiting alcohol consumption all reduce the baseline load on mental wellbeing. When those measures are not enough, speaking with a GP is a practical and appropriate next step, not a sign of weakness.

Hair: Keeping it sharp without overthinking it

Hair care for men is straightforward but often neglected. A quality shampoo used three to four times per week, removes oil and product buildup without over-stripping the scalp. Conditioner applied after shampooing restores moisture and reduces brittleness, particularly for men with longer styles or those who use heat tools regularly.

For men experiencing thinning or early-stage hair loss, acting early produces better outcomes than waiting until the change is significant. Clinically proven options including minoxidil topical treatment and finasteride taken orally have a strong evidence base for slowing and in some cases partially reversing androgenetic hair loss when used consistently. A conversation with a GP or dermatologist is the right starting point for assessing which option is appropriate.

Regular haircuts, even for shorter styles, maintain shape and remove split-ends that make hair appear duller and thinner. A cut every three to five weeks for short styles and every six to eight weeks for medium-length hair keeps things looking intentional rather than simply grown out.

Putting it together without overcomplicating it

The men who consistently look and feel their best are not running elaborate routines. They have identified a handful of things that matter and built simple systems around doing them regularly.

A morning skincare routine that takes five minutes. A dental appointment is booked twice a year. A consistent training schedule of three to four sessions per week. Eyewear that works with their face. Grooming habits that match the standard they want to maintain. And the willingness to make informed health decisions rather than deferring them indefinitely.

None of these requires significant time, expense, or effort. They require consistency, which is available to any man willing to make it a priority.

]]>

Australian men are paying more attention to how they look and feel than at any point in recent memory.

That shift is not about vanity. It is about recognising that showing up well in work, relationships and daily life requires a baseline level of care that goes beyond a quick shower and a haircut every few weeks.

The challenge is that most grooming and wellness advice directed at men either overcomplicates things or undersells them. This guide takes a practical approach. It covers the habits, products and professional appointments that make a genuine difference, without requiring an elaborate routine or a significant investment of time.

Whether you are starting from scratch or looking to sharpen what you already do, the areas covered here give you a clear framework for looking and feeling your best year round.

Dental health: The most overlooked part of men's appearance

A clean, healthy smile is one of the first things people notice and one of the last things most men prioritise. Regular brushing covers the basics, but it does not remove the hardened calculus that builds up over time and it does not catch the early-stage decay or gum changes that only a professional assessment can identify.

The standard recommendation of a check-up every six months exists for good reason. Problems caught early are consistently cheaper, faster and less uncomfortable to treat than those identified after they have had time to develop. For men in Brisbane's East, accessing quality Carindale dental services makes it straightforward to keep that schedule, without having to travel far or work around a complicated booking process.

Beyond check-ups, a few daily habits make a measurable difference. Flossing removes food debris and bacteria from between teeth that a toothbrush cannot reach. Drinking water throughout the day reduces the acidic environment in which decay-causing bacteria thrive. Limiting sugary drinks, including sports drinks and flavoured sparkling water, reduces the frequency of acid attacks on enamel that add up significantly over the years.

Skincare for men: Simple and effective

Men's skin tends to be thicker and oilier than women's, which offers some advantages, but also creates its own set of challenges. Enlarged pores, razor irritation, post-shave sensitivity and UV damage are the most common issues, and all of them respond well to a straightforward routine applied consistently.

A daily routine does not need to be complicated. A cleanser used morning and night removes oil, sweat and product buildup without stripping the skin's moisture barrier. A moisturiser applied after cleansing keeps skin hydrated and reduces the appearance of fine lines over time. A broad-spectrum SPF of at least 30, worn every morning, is the single highest-impact step in any skincare routine for Australian men, given the UV index in most parts of the country.

For men dealing with razor burn or ingrown hairs from shaving, applying a thin layer of post-shave balm or a soothing serum containing niacinamide or centella asiatica reduces inflammation and speeds recovery. Shaving with the grain rather than against it and using a sharp blade rather than an old one reduces the irritation that leads to these issues in the first place.

Exfoliating once or twice a week keeps skin texture even and prevents the pore congestion that leads to breakouts. A simple scrub or a chemical exfoliant containing salicylic acid is enough to make a noticeable difference without adding more than a few minutes to your routine.

Spray tanning: Not just for women

Spray tanning has moved well beyond its association with a single demographic. A growing number of Australian men use it regularly, whether before a formal event, during winter when sun exposure drops off, or simply as part of a grooming routine that prioritises a healthy, even complexion without the UV exposure that comes with sun tanning.

The key to a natural-looking result is product quality and preparation. Exfoliating the skin the day before application, moisturising dry areas like elbows and knees beforehand, and allowing adequate development time all contribute to an even, streak-free outcome. For professionals, offering spray tanning services, using quality spray tan solution, formulated for professional application, produces noticeably better results than generic products, with more natural colour payoff and longer-lasting coverage across different skin types.

For men doing it at home, a gradual tanning moisturiser applied daily is a lower-maintenance alternative that builds colour incrementally and is more forgiving of uneven application than a full spray tan.

Eyewear: A functional accessory that shapes first impressions

Sunglasses serve a practical purpose in Australia where UV exposure is consistently high, but they also function as one of the most visible elements of a man's personal style. The frame you choose communicates a great deal about your aesthetic, which makes it worth investing in a pair that fits your face well and holds up to daily use.

Carrera has maintained a reputation for well-constructed frames with a classic, masculine aesthetic that suits a broad range of face shapes. Men looking to shop Carrera sunglasses online can find a range of styles suited to different face shapes and occasions, from the kind of clean, minimalist frames that work in a professional setting to bolder wraparound styles built for outdoor and active use.

When choosing sunglasses, UV protection should be the baseline requirement rather than a bonus feature. All Australian-compliant sunglasses should meet AS/NZS 1067 standards, with category 3 lenses recommended for general outdoor use and category 4 for high-glare environments. Lens quality affects both optical clarity and long-term eye health, which makes it worth investing in frames from a reputable source, rather than reaching for the cheapest option available.

Fitness: Building a Routine That Holds Up

Regular physical activity is the single most impactful contribution most Australian men can make to how they look and feel. It improves body composition, lifts energy levels, sharpens mental focus, reduces stress and produces changes in skin and posture that no grooming product can replicate.

The most common reason men fall off a fitness routine is that it was too ambitious to maintain alongside work and family commitments. Three to four sessions per week, of 45 to 60 minutes, is a more realistic and sustainable target than a seven-day programme that burns out within a month. A combination of strength training and cardiovascular exercise spread across those sessions covers both body composition and cardiovascular health effectively.

Strength training two to three times per week builds and maintains the muscle mass that naturally declines from the mid-30s onwards. It also improves metabolic rate, bone density, and joint stability in ways that become increasingly important as men age. Compound lifts, such as squats, deadlifts, rows and presses deliver the most return per session, and require no more than three to four sets each to produce results when performed consistently.

Cardiovascular work does not need to be high-intensity to be effective. A 30-minute walk at a brisk pace, a cycle, or a swim provides meaningful cardiovascular and mental health benefits, without the recovery demand of high-intensity interval training. Choosing a form of cardio you actually enjoy makes it far more likely to stick.

Men's health decisions that deserve more attention

Men tend to delay health decisions, particularly those that feel personal or unfamiliar. Two areas where this pattern is especially common are prostate health and reproductive choices, both of which benefit significantly from early and informed action.

Reproductive decisions are not static. Life circumstances change, and choices made at one point do not have to define outcomes permanently. For men who have previously had a vasectomy and are now considering having children, the outcomes from reversal procedures have improved considerably with advances in microsurgical technique. Those exploring vasectomy reversal in Sydney will find that success rates are closely tied to the time elapsed since the original procedure and the experience of the surgeon performing the reversal, making early consultation and specialist selection the most important steps in the process.

Mental health deserves mention in any men's wellness guide. Australian men are statistically less likely to seek help for mental health concerns than women, despite facing comparable rates of anxiety, depression and stress-related conditions. The barriers are well documented but they are not insurmountable. Regular exercise, adequate sleep, social connection and limiting alcohol consumption all reduce the baseline load on mental wellbeing. When those measures are not enough, speaking with a GP is a practical and appropriate next step, not a sign of weakness.

Hair: Keeping it sharp without overthinking it

Hair care for men is straightforward but often neglected. A quality shampoo used three to four times per week, removes oil and product buildup without over-stripping the scalp. Conditioner applied after shampooing restores moisture and reduces brittleness, particularly for men with longer styles or those who use heat tools regularly.

For men experiencing thinning or early-stage hair loss, acting early produces better outcomes than waiting until the change is significant. Clinically proven options including minoxidil topical treatment and finasteride taken orally have a strong evidence base for slowing and in some cases partially reversing androgenetic hair loss when used consistently. A conversation with a GP or dermatologist is the right starting point for assessing which option is appropriate.

Regular haircuts, even for shorter styles, maintain shape and remove split-ends that make hair appear duller and thinner. A cut every three to five weeks for short styles and every six to eight weeks for medium-length hair keeps things looking intentional rather than simply grown out.

Putting it together without overcomplicating it

The men who consistently look and feel their best are not running elaborate routines. They have identified a handful of things that matter and built simple systems around doing them regularly.

A morning skincare routine that takes five minutes. A dental appointment is booked twice a year. A consistent training schedule of three to four sessions per week. Eyewear that works with their face. Grooming habits that match the standard they want to maintain. And the willingness to make informed health decisions rather than deferring them indefinitely.

None of these requires significant time, expense, or effort. They require consistency, which is available to any man willing to make it a priority.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/will-the-rba-choose-a-recession-for-australia,20898?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 07 Apr 2026 11:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/will-the-rba-choose-a-recession-for-australia,20898?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The Reserve Bank could kill talk of recession stone dead if it wanted to, writes Stephen Koukoulas. The fact it isn't is a serious concern.

RECESSIONS are bad news. 

For the vast bulk of economists, they are an economic hammer-blow that makes tens of thousands of businesses fail and close, hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, it spreads uncertainty and human misery across the nation.

Good economists know that recessions should be avoided at all costs.

It seems like an obvious thing to say, but it is a sad reflection of many in the economics profession that some are actual advocates for a recession in the current climate of booming global oil prices and a slightly uncomfortable up tick in inflation.

The lessons from past recessions that were avoided

The lessons from past recessions in the 1980s and early 1990s have shown up in the past two decades, in a broadly bipartisan approach to economic policy when recessions looked inevitable.

In the Global Financial Crisis from 2008 to 2010, when almost all industrial countries sank into a recession, Australia managed to avoid one. This was done via huge cuts in interest rates, a raft of financial support measures for the banking system and some fiscal policy stimulus from the government, largely directed to the household sector.

While a recession was not avoided with the COVID pandemic in 2020-2022, similarly, aggressive easing in interest rates, liquidity and financial support for banks and businesses, plus an array of fiscal policy measures, ensured the economic downturn was short-lived and the rise in the unemployment rate was well contained. It was a short, sharp recession.

The policy approaches in both these episodes were well-directed and successful, and continue to provide a template for the next time the economy looks like heading towards a recession.

Where are we now?

Talk of recession in Australia is building.

The fact that recessions are being spoken of now by credible economists in the wake of the global oil shock and the currently oppressive interest rate settings from the Reserve Bank of Australia suggests a lot is going wrong in the economy.

Signs pointing to a growing probability of recession in Australia, while still fuzzy and somewhat limited, are starting to emerge.

After the economy ended 2025 on a positive note, with annual GDP growth at a healthy 2.6 per cent, the unemployment rate edging lower and indicators like the stock market hitting record highs in February 2026, there are now concerning signals in the Australian economy.

While the bulk of data is yet to reflect any impact of the petrol price shock and earlier aggressive interest rate hikes, consumer confidence and some housing data relating to auction clearance rates are dismal. House prices in the two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, are falling. The stock market is volatile, but in recent weeks has been generally moving downward.

The latest Roy Morgan ANZ measure of consumer confidence, which includes the impact of the petrol price shock, crashed to a 53-year low last week.  

For those worried about the path of the economy, this is a staggeringly horrendous result.

Compared to now, Australian consumers were more upbeat about the economy during the worst point of the early 1980s recession, the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s, the tech wreck and heightened terrorism activity in the early 2000s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010 and even at the most pessimistic point of the  pandemic.

To reiterate — this current level of consumer confidence is extraordinary.

This matters because when consumers are pessimistic, undeniably worried about their finances, their jobs, their superannuation and other investments, they have a strong inclination to severely curtail their spending.

These are the seeds for a recession.

What can be done?

Recessions are, in the end, a choice for policymakers.

Talk of a recession could be killed stone dead by the RBA if it wanted.

While it is clearly worried about inflation, the RBA can provide support for the economy if it chooses to cut interest rates — plain and simple. Much as it did during the GFC and COVID.

It can flirt with recession and drive the economy into the ditch if it keeps monetary policy tight or, worse still, further tightens monetary policy with yet more interest rate increases.

A recession in 2026 and into 2027 is very much at the beck and call of the RBA and its interest rate settings.

To be sure, this would mean inflation running higher for longer, but ultimately the choice evolving for policy makers now is whether to add a few hundred thousand people to the ranks of the unemployed via a heightening risk of recession or to note a temporary period of inflation above target.

It is as simple as that.

Stephen Koukoulas is a past chief economist of Citibank and senior economic advisor to an Australian Prime Minister. You can follow Stephen on Twitter/X @TheKouk.

]]>

The Reserve Bank could kill talk of recession stone dead if it wanted to, writes Stephen Koukoulas. The fact it isn't is a serious concern.

RECESSIONS are bad news. 

For the vast bulk of economists, they are an economic hammer-blow that makes tens of thousands of businesses fail and close, hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, it spreads uncertainty and human misery across the nation.

Good economists know that recessions should be avoided at all costs.

It seems like an obvious thing to say, but it is a sad reflection of many in the economics profession that some are actual advocates for a recession in the current climate of booming global oil prices and a slightly uncomfortable up tick in inflation.

The lessons from past recessions that were avoided

The lessons from past recessions in the 1980s and early 1990s have shown up in the past two decades, in a broadly bipartisan approach to economic policy when recessions looked inevitable.

In the Global Financial Crisis from 2008 to 2010, when almost all industrial countries sank into a recession, Australia managed to avoid one. This was done via huge cuts in interest rates, a raft of financial support measures for the banking system and some fiscal policy stimulus from the government, largely directed to the household sector.

While a recession was not avoided with the COVID pandemic in 2020-2022, similarly, aggressive easing in interest rates, liquidity and financial support for banks and businesses, plus an array of fiscal policy measures, ensured the economic downturn was short-lived and the rise in the unemployment rate was well contained. It was a short, sharp recession.

The policy approaches in both these episodes were well-directed and successful, and continue to provide a template for the next time the economy looks like heading towards a recession.

Where are we now?

Talk of recession in Australia is building.

The fact that recessions are being spoken of now by credible economists in the wake of the global oil shock and the currently oppressive interest rate settings from the Reserve Bank of Australia suggests a lot is going wrong in the economy.

Signs pointing to a growing probability of recession in Australia, while still fuzzy and somewhat limited, are starting to emerge.

After the economy ended 2025 on a positive note, with annual GDP growth at a healthy 2.6 per cent, the unemployment rate edging lower and indicators like the stock market hitting record highs in February 2026, there are now concerning signals in the Australian economy.

While the bulk of data is yet to reflect any impact of the petrol price shock and earlier aggressive interest rate hikes, consumer confidence and some housing data relating to auction clearance rates are dismal. House prices in the two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, are falling. The stock market is volatile, but in recent weeks has been generally moving downward.

The latest Roy Morgan ANZ measure of consumer confidence, which includes the impact of the petrol price shock, crashed to a 53-year low last week.  

For those worried about the path of the economy, this is a staggeringly horrendous result.

Compared to now, Australian consumers were more upbeat about the economy during the worst point of the early 1980s recession, the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s, the tech wreck and heightened terrorism activity in the early 2000s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010 and even at the most pessimistic point of the  pandemic.

To reiterate — this current level of consumer confidence is extraordinary.

This matters because when consumers are pessimistic, undeniably worried about their finances, their jobs, their superannuation and other investments, they have a strong inclination to severely curtail their spending.

These are the seeds for a recession.

What can be done?

Recessions are, in the end, a choice for policymakers.

Talk of a recession could be killed stone dead by the RBA if it wanted.

While it is clearly worried about inflation, the RBA can provide support for the economy if it chooses to cut interest rates — plain and simple. Much as it did during the GFC and COVID.

It can flirt with recession and drive the economy into the ditch if it keeps monetary policy tight or, worse still, further tightens monetary policy with yet more interest rate increases.

A recession in 2026 and into 2027 is very much at the beck and call of the RBA and its interest rate settings.

To be sure, this would mean inflation running higher for longer, but ultimately the choice evolving for policy makers now is whether to add a few hundred thousand people to the ranks of the unemployed via a heightening risk of recession or to note a temporary period of inflation above target.

It is as simple as that.

Stephen Koukoulas is a past chief economist of Citibank and senior economic advisor to an Australian Prime Minister. You can follow Stephen on Twitter/X @TheKouk.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/democratic-promise-to-algorithmic-power-how-social-media-reshaped-truth,20901?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/democratic-promise-to-algorithmic-power-how-social-media-reshaped-truth,20901?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Social media, which began as a tool with democratic promise, has evolved into a system where commercial incentives, human psychology and political strategy interact in ways that weaken the informational foundations on which democracy depends, writes Paul Budde.

AT THE START of the social media era, there was a widespread belief that these platforms would strengthen democracy. By lowering barriers to participation, they appeared to give ordinary citizens a voice and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The Arab Spring became the defining example of this optimism.

But that promise was always more fragile than it seemed. Social media helped mobilisation, but it did not build democratic institutions, shared norms or lasting accountability. Over time, a different dynamic emerged — one that is now reshaping the foundations of public discourse.

The shift to engagement

By the mid-2010s, major platforms such as Facebook had aligned their systems around one central objective: maximising engagement. The longer users stayed and interacted, the more revenue could be generated.

This led to algorithmic systems designed to prioritise content most likely to attract attention. In practice, that meant favouring material that is emotionally engaging — provocative, surprising or polarising.

The consequences were predictable. Content that triggers outrage or fear consistently outperforms measured, fact-based information. This is not because platforms intentionally promote falsehoods, but because their systems reward what humans are most responsive to. Research shows that misleading information often spreads faster and further than factual reporting, particularly in political contexts.

The erosion of shared facts

This has transformed social media into powerful amplification systems. The issue is not simply that misinformation exists, but that platform structures elevate it.

Democracy does not require agreement, but it does depend on a shared factual baseline — enough common ground for disagreement to remain meaningful. When that erodes, public debate fragments into competing realities, reinforced by algorithmic feedback loops that prioritise engagement over accuracy.

Mass behaviour and the reshaping of leadership

These dynamics connect to deeper societal trends. José Ortega y Gasset described the rise of the “mass man”, while Friedrich Nietzsche warned of herd behaviour — conditions where opinion detaches from knowledge and conformity outweighs independent judgement.

Social media amplifies these tendencies. It rewards rapid reaction, group alignment and emotional resonance over reflection.

In this environment, leadership is reshaped. Those who rise are often those who can master visibility and mobilisation across fragmented audiences. Influence becomes tied to attention.

What is increasingly observed, however, is that some leaders who emerge through these dynamics go on to challenge or weaken the institutions that underpin democracy. This tends not to happen through sudden rupture, but through gradual erosion — questioning courts, media and electoral systems.

Social media accelerates this process by enabling direct communication with supporters and the continuous mobilisation of public sentiment against institutional constraints.

The industrialisation of influence

These structural dynamics are now actively exploited. Political actors, governments and commercial organisations use targeted messaging, coordinated networks, and data-driven strategies to shape public opinion.

Research from institutions such as the University of Oxford has shown that this is now widespread across many countries. Disinformation is no longer incidental — it has become embedded in political communication.

At the same time, traditional media are losing influence, while individual creators – influencers, vloggers and commentators – increasingly shape how people interpret events. The boundaries between journalism, entertainment and political messaging are becoming blurred, with far fewer accountability mechanisms.

A more sober assessment

It would be too simplistic to argue that social media has destroyed democracy. They have expanded participation and access to information.

But the balance has shifted. What began as a tool with democratic promise has evolved into a system where commercial incentives, human psychology and political strategy interact in ways that weaken the informational foundations on which democracy depends.

The issue is no longer whether social media influences democracy. It is how profoundly they now shape the conditions under which it operates.

 

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

 

 

 

]]>

Social media, which began as a tool with democratic promise, has evolved into a system where commercial incentives, human psychology and political strategy interact in ways that weaken the informational foundations on which democracy depends, writes Paul Budde.

AT THE START of the social media era, there was a widespread belief that these platforms would strengthen democracy. By lowering barriers to participation, they appeared to give ordinary citizens a voice and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The Arab Spring became the defining example of this optimism.

But that promise was always more fragile than it seemed. Social media helped mobilisation, but it did not build democratic institutions, shared norms or lasting accountability. Over time, a different dynamic emerged — one that is now reshaping the foundations of public discourse.

The shift to engagement

By the mid-2010s, major platforms such as Facebook had aligned their systems around one central objective: maximising engagement. The longer users stayed and interacted, the more revenue could be generated.

This led to algorithmic systems designed to prioritise content most likely to attract attention. In practice, that meant favouring material that is emotionally engaging — provocative, surprising or polarising.

The consequences were predictable. Content that triggers outrage or fear consistently outperforms measured, fact-based information. This is not because platforms intentionally promote falsehoods, but because their systems reward what humans are most responsive to. Research shows that misleading information often spreads faster and further than factual reporting, particularly in political contexts.

The erosion of shared facts

This has transformed social media into powerful amplification systems. The issue is not simply that misinformation exists, but that platform structures elevate it.

Democracy does not require agreement, but it does depend on a shared factual baseline — enough common ground for disagreement to remain meaningful. When that erodes, public debate fragments into competing realities, reinforced by algorithmic feedback loops that prioritise engagement over accuracy.

Mass behaviour and the reshaping of leadership

These dynamics connect to deeper societal trends. José Ortega y Gasset described the rise of the “mass man”, while Friedrich Nietzsche warned of herd behaviour — conditions where opinion detaches from knowledge and conformity outweighs independent judgement.

Social media amplifies these tendencies. It rewards rapid reaction, group alignment and emotional resonance over reflection.

In this environment, leadership is reshaped. Those who rise are often those who can master visibility and mobilisation across fragmented audiences. Influence becomes tied to attention.

What is increasingly observed, however, is that some leaders who emerge through these dynamics go on to challenge or weaken the institutions that underpin democracy. This tends not to happen through sudden rupture, but through gradual erosion — questioning courts, media and electoral systems.

Social media accelerates this process by enabling direct communication with supporters and the continuous mobilisation of public sentiment against institutional constraints.

The industrialisation of influence

These structural dynamics are now actively exploited. Political actors, governments and commercial organisations use targeted messaging, coordinated networks, and data-driven strategies to shape public opinion.

Research from institutions such as the University of Oxford has shown that this is now widespread across many countries. Disinformation is no longer incidental — it has become embedded in political communication.

At the same time, traditional media are losing influence, while individual creators – influencers, vloggers and commentators – increasingly shape how people interpret events. The boundaries between journalism, entertainment and political messaging are becoming blurred, with far fewer accountability mechanisms.

A more sober assessment

It would be too simplistic to argue that social media has destroyed democracy. They have expanded participation and access to information.

But the balance has shifted. What began as a tool with democratic promise has evolved into a system where commercial incentives, human psychology and political strategy interact in ways that weaken the informational foundations on which democracy depends.

The issue is no longer whether social media influences democracy. It is how profoundly they now shape the conditions under which it operates.

 

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

 

 

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/italys-referendum-beckons-a-democratic-reawakening,20899?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 07 Apr 2026 16:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/italys-referendum-beckons-a-democratic-reawakening,20899?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Italians have voted decisively in a referendum to defy its authoritarian Government. Adriano Tedde says this is a positive development for supporters of democracy in both Italy and the world.

DANIELE, a friend’s 22-year-old son, was arrested in Pisa last year for blocking train traffic to protest Italian complicity in the Gaza war. He belongs to a group of young activists whom the media quickly labelled the “Gaza Generation” after their loud protests and strikes across the country in 2025. They are citizens aged between 18 and 30, often overlooked by public opinion and by a ruling class in a country overwhelmingly run by older people.

Yet on 22 and 23 March, Daniele and his peers made history by participating en masse in a Referendum that was meant to shake the foundations of the republican form of state Italy adopted after World War II. Their decisive preference for the “No” option surprised the media, pollsters and, more importantly, politicians. It also played a decisive role in safeguarding democracy in Italy.

Italians were called to the polls to vote on a Constitutional reform of the judicial system designed by the far-right Government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The reform aimed to separate the career paths of judges and prosecutors, create two distinct governing bodies for the judiciary with members selected through a lottery system, and establish a new court for disciplinary actions against magistrates.

This highly technical restructuring of the judicial branch was presented by its proponents as a step towards a more impartial system. Opponents, however, argued that the new rules were crafted to subject the judiciary to political will and to shield those in power from judicial inquiries — a recurring issue in Italy since the 1990s, when magistrates began investigating corruption at all levels of the political sphere.

Since the referendum was called at the end of last year, pollsters had indicated that the “Yes” camp would win comfortably. Meloni could count on the strong support of mainstream media and major opinion leaders to advance a reform that many described as incomprehensible to the average citizen.

As the vote approached and polls showed the “No” camp gaining momentum, Meloni appeared on a popular podcast to encourage young people to support the constitutional change. As she had hoped, young people did turn out to vote — but they did not follow her advice to vote “Yes.” The referendum drew around 60% of voters, a remarkably high turnout for such a technical issue. The “No” vote secured 53.7% of the ballots, against 46.1% for the “Yes,” plunging Meloni’s coalition into disarray.

While Meloni’s political opponents in Rome celebrate the victory of the “No” camp, observers note that the result was made possible by 3 million cross-party voters who had abstained from the 2022 Italian General Election, which recorded the lowest turnout in Italian history. In other words, although trust in politics remains at historic lows, democracy was protected by a reawakening of social conscience in a country where the anti-fascist Constitution of 1948 is still seen as the nation’s anchor and lifeline.

This outcome was made possible by grassroots organisations and magistrates themselves, who worked tirelessly through social media to organise community meetings and door-to-door outreach and educate voters about the risks of the Government’s proposed reform. At stake was the independence of Italy’s magistracy and the integrity of a constitutional framework designed to guarantee a perfect balance of state powers. The media and political class failed to anticipate this shift, in a world where elites and citizens are increasingly disconnected.

LESSONS FROM ITALY'S VOTE

At least three lessons can be drawn from Italy’s vote.

First, one should never underestimate the power of grassroots movements, which form the backbone of any healthy democracy. People want to participate in the political system and have their voices heard. That is why they march and protest when they disagree with their governments. And when politicians fail to listen, they will eventually squander their support and lose office.

Second, Italy’s referendum is a warning sign for the rest of Europe as illiberal politics gains ground across the continent, where countries have been dangerously flirting with authoritarian tendencies — from Germany to Poland, from Hungary to Finland. The desire for more democracy has emerged loud and clear through the participation of Italy’s civil society in the Referendum. This offers hope that a similar dynamism exists in other nations and that it can prevail against the darker forces looming over Europe.

Third, much of the resentment voiced by young people against Meloni’s Government stems from its foreign policy, which has aligned with Trump and Netanyahu. Often treated as the domain of geopolitical experts, foreign policy choices can have a significant domestic impact. Meloni’s refusal to acknowledge Italians’ preference for moderation and peace was ultimately reflected in the referendum results.

Since the time of Machiavelli, Italy has often served as a political laboratory ahead of other European countries. After the vote, I spoke with Daniele’s father, who had been frustrated when his son was arrested during last year’s protests. This time, he told me how proud he was of him.

Voters like Daniele, in the prime of their lives, must now translate their ideas and energy into new political initiatives, finding representation in local and national institutions – as their parents and grandparents once did – to reinvigorate Italy’s ongoing democratic experiment.

Dr Adriano Tedde is a lecturer in Strategic and American Studies at Deakin University.

]]>

Italians have voted decisively in a referendum to defy its authoritarian Government. Adriano Tedde says this is a positive development for supporters of democracy in both Italy and the world.

DANIELE, a friend’s 22-year-old son, was arrested in Pisa last year for blocking train traffic to protest Italian complicity in the Gaza war. He belongs to a group of young activists whom the media quickly labelled the “Gaza Generation” after their loud protests and strikes across the country in 2025. They are citizens aged between 18 and 30, often overlooked by public opinion and by a ruling class in a country overwhelmingly run by older people.

Yet on 22 and 23 March, Daniele and his peers made history by participating en masse in a Referendum that was meant to shake the foundations of the republican form of state Italy adopted after World War II. Their decisive preference for the “No” option surprised the media, pollsters and, more importantly, politicians. It also played a decisive role in safeguarding democracy in Italy.

Italians were called to the polls to vote on a Constitutional reform of the judicial system designed by the far-right Government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The reform aimed to separate the career paths of judges and prosecutors, create two distinct governing bodies for the judiciary with members selected through a lottery system, and establish a new court for disciplinary actions against magistrates.

This highly technical restructuring of the judicial branch was presented by its proponents as a step towards a more impartial system. Opponents, however, argued that the new rules were crafted to subject the judiciary to political will and to shield those in power from judicial inquiries — a recurring issue in Italy since the 1990s, when magistrates began investigating corruption at all levels of the political sphere.

Since the referendum was called at the end of last year, pollsters had indicated that the “Yes” camp would win comfortably. Meloni could count on the strong support of mainstream media and major opinion leaders to advance a reform that many described as incomprehensible to the average citizen.

As the vote approached and polls showed the “No” camp gaining momentum, Meloni appeared on a popular podcast to encourage young people to support the constitutional change. As she had hoped, young people did turn out to vote — but they did not follow her advice to vote “Yes.” The referendum drew around 60% of voters, a remarkably high turnout for such a technical issue. The “No” vote secured 53.7% of the ballots, against 46.1% for the “Yes,” plunging Meloni’s coalition into disarray.

While Meloni’s political opponents in Rome celebrate the victory of the “No” camp, observers note that the result was made possible by 3 million cross-party voters who had abstained from the 2022 Italian General Election, which recorded the lowest turnout in Italian history. In other words, although trust in politics remains at historic lows, democracy was protected by a reawakening of social conscience in a country where the anti-fascist Constitution of 1948 is still seen as the nation’s anchor and lifeline.

This outcome was made possible by grassroots organisations and magistrates themselves, who worked tirelessly through social media to organise community meetings and door-to-door outreach and educate voters about the risks of the Government’s proposed reform. At stake was the independence of Italy’s magistracy and the integrity of a constitutional framework designed to guarantee a perfect balance of state powers. The media and political class failed to anticipate this shift, in a world where elites and citizens are increasingly disconnected.

LESSONS FROM ITALY'S VOTE

At least three lessons can be drawn from Italy’s vote.

First, one should never underestimate the power of grassroots movements, which form the backbone of any healthy democracy. People want to participate in the political system and have their voices heard. That is why they march and protest when they disagree with their governments. And when politicians fail to listen, they will eventually squander their support and lose office.

Second, Italy’s referendum is a warning sign for the rest of Europe as illiberal politics gains ground across the continent, where countries have been dangerously flirting with authoritarian tendencies — from Germany to Poland, from Hungary to Finland. The desire for more democracy has emerged loud and clear through the participation of Italy’s civil society in the Referendum. This offers hope that a similar dynamism exists in other nations and that it can prevail against the darker forces looming over Europe.

Third, much of the resentment voiced by young people against Meloni’s Government stems from its foreign policy, which has aligned with Trump and Netanyahu. Often treated as the domain of geopolitical experts, foreign policy choices can have a significant domestic impact. Meloni’s refusal to acknowledge Italians’ preference for moderation and peace was ultimately reflected in the referendum results.

Since the time of Machiavelli, Italy has often served as a political laboratory ahead of other European countries. After the vote, I spoke with Daniele’s father, who had been frustrated when his son was arrested during last year’s protests. This time, he told me how proud he was of him.

Voters like Daniele, in the prime of their lives, must now translate their ideas and energy into new political initiatives, finding representation in local and national institutions – as their parents and grandparents once did – to reinvigorate Italy’s ongoing democratic experiment.

Dr Adriano Tedde is a lecturer in Strategic and American Studies at Deakin University.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/medical-misogyny-and-endometriosis-beyond-the-simon-gordon-scandal,20884?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 02 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/medical-misogyny-and-endometriosis-beyond-the-simon-gordon-scandal,20884?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Dr Simon Gordon's alleged victims may have been preyed upon by an unscrupulous practitioner, but he was enabled by a misogynistic health system that requires an urgent and major overhaul. Managing editor Michelle Pini reports.

A RECENT Four Corners exposé featured a prominent Melbourne surgeon whose alleged sickening surgical procedures left a trail of women with their insides butchered and lives shattered.

Long hailed as a leading endometriosis specialist, gynaecologist Dr Simon Gordon’s horrific deeds are so harrowing they prompted Health Minister Mark Butler to state about the allegations:

“They're some of the most distressing testimonies I've ever seen in my many years in the health portfolio.”

The shocking violations to which this man allegedly subjected his victims include the removal of countless healthy organs, often via oophorectomies and hysterectomies and intricate neurological procedures on patients, many under the age of 30 — seemingly unsupported by histopathology results.

Of course, Gordon’s alleged serial abuse must be investigated and some level of justice served to his victims, but there is a broader story here.

How did this man proceed over so many years, maiming hundreds of victims, despite years of complaints from patients, nurses, pathologists and colleagues, launched with both Epworth Hospital and medical regulator AHPRA?

How is it that the concerns of so many remained unchecked by the unofficial boys’ club protection racket within the upper echelons of this medical fraternity?

And it is not that his superiors at the Epworth and even the medical regulator were unaware. The number of official complaints over some years suggests that the medical establishment chose to look the other way. Certainly, it is alleged 'that appropriate action was not taken by the hospital’.

“It has been reported that Gordon billed every single patient with the Medicare item number for severe, Stage IV or V endometriosis). How is that possible? Why did they not do their due diligence?”

Epworth Hospital, where Gordon worked for over 25 years, recently announced an "independent inquiry". However, given Epworth’s inaction prior to the Four Corners investigation and since it is conducting the inquiry, including choosing the people to lead it, and refusing to allow Gordon’s patients the opportunity to provide testimony, how “independent” this inquiry will be remains to be seen.

SYSTEMIC MISOGYNY

Then there is the matter of the nature of endometriosis itself, which is a medical condition predominantly affecting women. Though it is a chronic inflammatory condition where endometriosis tissue may be found on all organs, including non-reproductive organs, it is primarily linked with the female reproductive system, and has thus been minimised, if not outright ignored, by many (usually male) medical practitioners.

Over 70 per cent of women reportedly experience bias in the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions. With regard to endometriosis, symptoms are often relegated to "a bad period" or young girls being over-anxious and overly dramatic.

Indeed, ‘illnesses common to women are systematically ignored or misattributed as evidence of mental illness, deviant behaviour or a lack of self-care’.

If you think this an exaggeration, consider that endometriosis is rarely diagnosed before an average of six to eight years. That means six to eight years of often debilitating pain for sufferers. There is no known cure, so little research, so little in the way of answers and so few medical professionals with any expertise in this condition.

“When I told him [Gordon] I was now often unable to get out of bed in the morning, he said that that wasn’t his area, and I should go to the GP and get a mental health plan.”

Senior research scientist at Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Dr Fiona Cousins, told IA "women's health conditions have been underfunded for decades", with only one of their four endometriosis projects currently government-funded:

There is a desperate need to improve diagnosis to reduce the current average eight-year diagnosis delay. However, once a person gets their endometriosis diagnosis their treatment options are limited (hormonal therapy, painkillers, surgery).
 

There is a need for non-hormonal, non-surgical treatments that can have a real impact on a person's pain and other symptoms.
 

In order to develop these treatments, we really need to understand how the disease works, so that we can look to tailoring treatment plans that work for each individual, given the large heterogeneity in disease presentation.

Dr Cousins added:

Whilst the Australian Government has made some investment into endometriosis care and management with the recent launch of the endometriosis Medicare number (July 2025) and the National Action Plan (announced in 2018), it is sadly not enough. 

Let’s contrast that with, say, erectile dysfunction, and even a rudimentary Google search will chalk up endless studies and effective treatments.

The issue of male sexual gratification has even managed to infiltrate the minimal research afforded to endometriosis.  

It certainly shocked this writer to learn that several existing studies focus not on diagnosis, treatment or cure of endometriosis but on how the condition impacts male partners, such as the following:

• 'Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study', 2013
• 'A qualitative study of the impact of endometriosis on male partners', 2017
• 'Does Endometriosis Affect Sexual Activity and Satisfaction of the Man Partner? A Comparison of Partners From Women Diagnosed With Endometriosis and Controls', 2018
• 'The Sexual Wellbeing of Men whose Partners Experience Painful Intercourse Due to Endometriosis', 2019

Yes, one in seven girls and women and those assigned female at birth suffer excruciating pain and ongoing debilitating symptoms, with many requiring invasive surgeries and indefinite opiate-level pain management, but let’s fund studies on the men who may not be sexually satisfied as a result!

Thus, when a supposed eminent leader in the field emerges, says he understands and promises to cure their pain, it is easy to see why so many women trusted Dr Simon Gordon.

*Mia, a former patient of Gordon, told IA:

Everyone going through this endometriosis battle, suffering chronic pain and constant nausea and fatigue, is looking for validation, and he offered that.
 

He was the first person who said, ‘Nausea is a common symptom of endometriosis. I can help you'. And I believed him.

After her surgery, Gordon informed Mia that he “had fixed her problem”:

He told me he had performed an oophoropexy, and extracted a 4.5 cm mass that was leaking fluid and affecting the bowel, and that ‘it was going in his blue book’ — a book where exceptional cases were recorded.

 

It makes you feel a bit special, to have your condition diagnosed and treated, and be worthy of special mention.

Unfortunately for Mia, as with many of Gordon’s patients, this procedure did not improve her quality of life, and her chronic pain and fatigue (another common symptom) deteriorated such that she was no longer able to work.

Mia says:

“When I told him [Gordon] I was now often unable to get out of bed in the morning, he said that that wasn’t his area, and I should go to the GP and get a mental health plan.”

Mia saw another specialist who confirmed that she had endometriosis and adenomyosis, but that “there was no evidence of there ever being anything on [her] bowel”.

HOW TO AVOID ANOTHER SIMON GORDON

Gordon’s alleged atrocities against so many women are so horrendous they have evoked outrage at the highest levels. Both national and state government leaders are attempting to effect much-needed change. However, it is also important to note that this chronic disease and what may be required to avoid another Simon Gordon is that one size does not fit all when it comes to the way forward in endometriosis diagnosis and treatment.

Mia says:

Gordon was able to continue for the simple reason that we had all been to countless doctors when we were sick and in pain and got nothing, because they didn’t know and couldn’t help.
 

And because we’ve been so let down by so many institutions — by those who should’ve protected us.

*Jess (another of Gordon's patients) agrees with this and adds:

“It has been reported that Gordon billed every single patient with the Medicare item number for severe, Stage IV or V endometriosis). How is that possible? Why did they not do their due diligence?”

It is the opinion of this publication that the following areas require acknowledgement, review and/or urgent action:

1. Endometriosis can cause adhesions between organs, significant organ damage, loss of organs and in some cases has been fatal. Currently, the only way to receive an endometriosis diagnosis, in the majority of cases, is through surgery and the subsequent histopathology of tissue.

It is also worth noting that the amount of endometriosis tissue present is not an indication of the level of pain/symptoms experienced. This is a point often left out of reporting on this issue and overlooked by politicians.

2. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced Safer Care Victoria would amend the clinical guidelines, making clear that a less invasive ultrasound should be the first step for diagnosing endometriosis across Victoria. However, according to a study on the effectiveness of diagnostic tools, imaging modalities are most often incapable of detecting endometriosis, so this is not always a suitable diagnostic alternative to laparoscopy.

3. Ovarian cancer risk markedly increases for people with endometriosis, and pelvic ultrasound is a key diagnostic tool for ovarian cancer, but in January 2025, the cost of pelvic ultrasound went from no charge to $95.95 per ultrasound.

4. Legislative reform must focus on the regulation of surgeons who are performing laparoscopic surgeries.

5. Current Federal Government endometriosis funding focuses on reactive measures, with $37 million dedicated to endometriosis clinics and $26.33 million spent on research. Funding must be increased and directed to research on prevention, cause and treatment of the condition, rather than its management.

6. Premier Jacinta Allen has referred Dr Simon Gordon to Victoria Police for criminal investigation. It should be noted here that despite this and the litany of complaints against him, Gordon voluntarily resigned his position in the lead-up to the media storm — Epworth Hospital did not dismiss him. 

7. Legal compensation actions against Gordon and the Epworth Hospital are currently being investigated by several law firms, though there is no guarantee they will receive recompense.

8. A government inquiry into Epworth Hospital's conduct is urgently needed.

9. A government-led inquiry into the checks and balances surrounding medical practices, administrative procedures and complaint procedures, including those of Medicare and medical regulator AHPRA is also urgently needed.

Dr Simon Gordon's patients may have been preyed upon by an unscrupulous practitioner, but he was enabled by a misogynistic health system that requires an urgent and major overhaul. Even following the shocking allegations of this man's practises, his victims have been ignored, their concerns dismissed and insult added to injury by an Epworth-led inquiry which has shut them out.

With one in seven women affected, it is likely we all know someone who is impacted by endometriosis and the following statistics may also surprise readers:

• endometriosis-related hospitalisations increased by 43% between 2011 and 2022;
• endometriosis hospitalisations have doubled among females aged 20–24 in the past decade; and
• the total cost of endometriosis is estimated at $30,900 per person.

Endometriosis is not simply a "women’s issue".

* Names changed for anonymity

This editorial was originally published as part of the Independent Australia weekly newsletter. Subscribe to IA to access all our work from as little as $1.15 per week and help power our journalism in 2026.

Follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social and Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter@independentaus and Facebook HERE.

]]>

Dr Simon Gordon's alleged victims may have been preyed upon by an unscrupulous practitioner, but he was enabled by a misogynistic health system that requires an urgent and major overhaul. Managing editor Michelle Pini reports.

A RECENT Four Corners exposé featured a prominent Melbourne surgeon whose alleged sickening surgical procedures left a trail of women with their insides butchered and lives shattered.

Long hailed as a leading endometriosis specialist, gynaecologist Dr Simon Gordon’s horrific deeds are so harrowing they prompted Health Minister Mark Butler to state about the allegations:

“They're some of the most distressing testimonies I've ever seen in my many years in the health portfolio.”

The shocking violations to which this man allegedly subjected his victims include the removal of countless healthy organs, often via oophorectomies and hysterectomies and intricate neurological procedures on patients, many under the age of 30 — seemingly unsupported by histopathology results.

Of course, Gordon’s alleged serial abuse must be investigated and some level of justice served to his victims, but there is a broader story here.

How did this man proceed over so many years, maiming hundreds of victims, despite years of complaints from patients, nurses, pathologists and colleagues, launched with both Epworth Hospital and medical regulator AHPRA?

How is it that the concerns of so many remained unchecked by the unofficial boys’ club protection racket within the upper echelons of this medical fraternity?

And it is not that his superiors at the Epworth and even the medical regulator were unaware. The number of official complaints over some years suggests that the medical establishment chose to look the other way. Certainly, it is alleged 'that appropriate action was not taken by the hospital’.

“It has been reported that Gordon billed every single patient with the Medicare item number for severe, Stage IV or V endometriosis). How is that possible? Why did they not do their due diligence?”

Epworth Hospital, where Gordon worked for over 25 years, recently announced an "independent inquiry". However, given Epworth’s inaction prior to the Four Corners investigation and since it is conducting the inquiry, including choosing the people to lead it, and refusing to allow Gordon’s patients the opportunity to provide testimony, how “independent” this inquiry will be remains to be seen.

SYSTEMIC MISOGYNY

Then there is the matter of the nature of endometriosis itself, which is a medical condition predominantly affecting women. Though it is a chronic inflammatory condition where endometriosis tissue may be found on all organs, including non-reproductive organs, it is primarily linked with the female reproductive system, and has thus been minimised, if not outright ignored, by many (usually male) medical practitioners.

Over 70 per cent of women reportedly experience bias in the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions. With regard to endometriosis, symptoms are often relegated to "a bad period" or young girls being over-anxious and overly dramatic.

Indeed, ‘illnesses common to women are systematically ignored or misattributed as evidence of mental illness, deviant behaviour or a lack of self-care’.

If you think this an exaggeration, consider that endometriosis is rarely diagnosed before an average of six to eight years. That means six to eight years of often debilitating pain for sufferers. There is no known cure, so little research, so little in the way of answers and so few medical professionals with any expertise in this condition.

“When I told him [Gordon] I was now often unable to get out of bed in the morning, he said that that wasn’t his area, and I should go to the GP and get a mental health plan.”

Senior research scientist at Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Dr Fiona Cousins, told IA "women's health conditions have been underfunded for decades", with only one of their four endometriosis projects currently government-funded:

There is a desperate need to improve diagnosis to reduce the current average eight-year diagnosis delay. However, once a person gets their endometriosis diagnosis their treatment options are limited (hormonal therapy, painkillers, surgery).
 

There is a need for non-hormonal, non-surgical treatments that can have a real impact on a person's pain and other symptoms.
 

In order to develop these treatments, we really need to understand how the disease works, so that we can look to tailoring treatment plans that work for each individual, given the large heterogeneity in disease presentation.

Dr Cousins added:

Whilst the Australian Government has made some investment into endometriosis care and management with the recent launch of the endometriosis Medicare number (July 2025) and the National Action Plan (announced in 2018), it is sadly not enough. 

Let’s contrast that with, say, erectile dysfunction, and even a rudimentary Google search will chalk up endless studies and effective treatments.

The issue of male sexual gratification has even managed to infiltrate the minimal research afforded to endometriosis.  

It certainly shocked this writer to learn that several existing studies focus not on diagnosis, treatment or cure of endometriosis but on how the condition impacts male partners, such as the following:

• 'Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study', 2013
• 'A qualitative study of the impact of endometriosis on male partners', 2017
• 'Does Endometriosis Affect Sexual Activity and Satisfaction of the Man Partner? A Comparison of Partners From Women Diagnosed With Endometriosis and Controls', 2018
• 'The Sexual Wellbeing of Men whose Partners Experience Painful Intercourse Due to Endometriosis', 2019

Yes, one in seven girls and women and those assigned female at birth suffer excruciating pain and ongoing debilitating symptoms, with many requiring invasive surgeries and indefinite opiate-level pain management, but let’s fund studies on the men who may not be sexually satisfied as a result!

Thus, when a supposed eminent leader in the field emerges, says he understands and promises to cure their pain, it is easy to see why so many women trusted Dr Simon Gordon.

*Mia, a former patient of Gordon, told IA:

Everyone going through this endometriosis battle, suffering chronic pain and constant nausea and fatigue, is looking for validation, and he offered that.
 

He was the first person who said, ‘Nausea is a common symptom of endometriosis. I can help you'. And I believed him.

After her surgery, Gordon informed Mia that he “had fixed her problem”:

He told me he had performed an oophoropexy, and extracted a 4.5 cm mass that was leaking fluid and affecting the bowel, and that ‘it was going in his blue book’ — a book where exceptional cases were recorded.

 

It makes you feel a bit special, to have your condition diagnosed and treated, and be worthy of special mention.

Unfortunately for Mia, as with many of Gordon’s patients, this procedure did not improve her quality of life, and her chronic pain and fatigue (another common symptom) deteriorated such that she was no longer able to work.

Mia says:

“When I told him [Gordon] I was now often unable to get out of bed in the morning, he said that that wasn’t his area, and I should go to the GP and get a mental health plan.”

Mia saw another specialist who confirmed that she had endometriosis and adenomyosis, but that “there was no evidence of there ever being anything on [her] bowel”.

HOW TO AVOID ANOTHER SIMON GORDON

Gordon’s alleged atrocities against so many women are so horrendous they have evoked outrage at the highest levels. Both national and state government leaders are attempting to effect much-needed change. However, it is also important to note that this chronic disease and what may be required to avoid another Simon Gordon is that one size does not fit all when it comes to the way forward in endometriosis diagnosis and treatment.

Mia says:

Gordon was able to continue for the simple reason that we had all been to countless doctors when we were sick and in pain and got nothing, because they didn’t know and couldn’t help.
 

And because we’ve been so let down by so many institutions — by those who should’ve protected us.

*Jess (another of Gordon's patients) agrees with this and adds:

“It has been reported that Gordon billed every single patient with the Medicare item number for severe, Stage IV or V endometriosis). How is that possible? Why did they not do their due diligence?”

It is the opinion of this publication that the following areas require acknowledgement, review and/or urgent action:

1. Endometriosis can cause adhesions between organs, significant organ damage, loss of organs and in some cases has been fatal. Currently, the only way to receive an endometriosis diagnosis, in the majority of cases, is through surgery and the subsequent histopathology of tissue.

It is also worth noting that the amount of endometriosis tissue present is not an indication of the level of pain/symptoms experienced. This is a point often left out of reporting on this issue and overlooked by politicians.

2. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced Safer Care Victoria would amend the clinical guidelines, making clear that a less invasive ultrasound should be the first step for diagnosing endometriosis across Victoria. However, according to a study on the effectiveness of diagnostic tools, imaging modalities are most often incapable of detecting endometriosis, so this is not always a suitable diagnostic alternative to laparoscopy.

3. Ovarian cancer risk markedly increases for people with endometriosis, and pelvic ultrasound is a key diagnostic tool for ovarian cancer, but in January 2025, the cost of pelvic ultrasound went from no charge to $95.95 per ultrasound.

4. Legislative reform must focus on the regulation of surgeons who are performing laparoscopic surgeries.

5. Current Federal Government endometriosis funding focuses on reactive measures, with $37 million dedicated to endometriosis clinics and $26.33 million spent on research. Funding must be increased and directed to research on prevention, cause and treatment of the condition, rather than its management.

6. Premier Jacinta Allen has referred Dr Simon Gordon to Victoria Police for criminal investigation. It should be noted here that despite this and the litany of complaints against him, Gordon voluntarily resigned his position in the lead-up to the media storm — Epworth Hospital did not dismiss him. 

7. Legal compensation actions against Gordon and the Epworth Hospital are currently being investigated by several law firms, though there is no guarantee they will receive recompense.

8. A government inquiry into Epworth Hospital's conduct is urgently needed.

9. A government-led inquiry into the checks and balances surrounding medical practices, administrative procedures and complaint procedures, including those of Medicare and medical regulator AHPRA is also urgently needed.

Dr Simon Gordon's patients may have been preyed upon by an unscrupulous practitioner, but he was enabled by a misogynistic health system that requires an urgent and major overhaul. Even following the shocking allegations of this man's practises, his victims have been ignored, their concerns dismissed and insult added to injury by an Epworth-led inquiry which has shut them out.

With one in seven women affected, it is likely we all know someone who is impacted by endometriosis and the following statistics may also surprise readers:

• endometriosis-related hospitalisations increased by 43% between 2011 and 2022;
• endometriosis hospitalisations have doubled among females aged 20–24 in the past decade; and
• the total cost of endometriosis is estimated at $30,900 per person.

Endometriosis is not simply a "women’s issue".

* Names changed for anonymity

This editorial was originally published as part of the Independent Australia weekly newsletter. Subscribe to IA to access all our work from as little as $1.15 per week and help power our journalism in 2026.

Follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social and Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter@independentaus and Facebook HERE.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/rules-based-order-collapse-australias-chance-for-independence,20896?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 07 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/rules-based-order-collapse-australias-chance-for-independence,20896?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The present international crisis presents Australia with an opportunity to seek an independent path in the world that will also make the nation more secure in an increasingly tumultuous world, writes Dr Albert Palazzo.

FOR MANY YEARS, the rules-based global order was one of the stated pillars of Australia’s defence policy. It featured in numerous government security documents as well as in statements by government officials. At the same time, our political leaders insisted that the global order was under attack from Russia and China and Australia needed to support the United States in its defence.

The government hardly mentions the words "rules-based global order" these days. It is almost as if it were never genuinely significant despite the effort put into extolling its importance. Perhaps Australia’s political class did not expect the United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, to be the one that destroyed the order that featured so strongly in Australia’s security policy.

When one of the pillars of a nation’s security policy collapses, it is reasonable to expect that a re-examination of that policy will take place. Perhaps the government might even release a statement acknowledging that the situation has changed. In this instance, however, the chosen course of action by Australia’s leaders is to hope that no one has noticed the seismic shift that has occurred. Australia’s total support for the Alliance continues as before, support for the illegal war with Iran is offered and the troubled AUKUS agreement is described as "full steam ahead".

Other countries have not been so hesitant to acknowledge reality. The speech given by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the meeting of the World Economic Forum was an exercise in telling it like it is. The rules-based order is gone and America is now a rapacious hegemon.

The key question Australians need to ask themselves is whether they want to become the vassal of a hegemon. If the hegemon in question was China, the answer would be an immediate resounding no, with the government leading the cheer. Yet this is the trajectory Australia is on in regard to the United States.

I must assume that the Australian Government does not want our nation to become an American vassal, but it is hard to tell.

To avoid such a fate, Australia must join with Europe, Canada and regional states to develop new ways to ensure our security amidst the turmoil and lack of trust Trump has engendered. From a defence perspective, it is essential for Australia to implement an independent national security policy that does not rely on the United States. The days of the "insurance policy" are gone. Our island geography, protected by modern precision strike missiles and long-range drones, allows Australia to defend itself, and to do so at a relatively modest cost.

Instead of building an Australian Defence Force (ADF) that is designed as a subset of the U.S. military, and which slips easily under a U.S. command to fit into the American-made American-led war, Australia should aspire to have a military whose primary purpose is to protect the nation — just like any sovereign state. I outline the necessary steps in my book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia’s National Security.

Securing Australia is not only a matter for the military, however. Australia can play a leading role among middle powers to build new multilateral organisations to advance shared interests and protect itself from potential abuse by a hegemon. Regionally and globally, Australia should work with other states to moderate the power of the new hegemonic-led world order. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) should rightly be the lead for the nation’s security policy, with the Department of Defence in support.

Australia also needs to improve its resilience. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in a fuel crisis that has demonstrated Australia’s vulnerability to overseas shocks which it cannot control. The government needs to implement internal reform so that Australia breaks its reliance on overseas fuels and thereby secures its own future from external interference. One obvious step to reduce the nation’s vulnerability to fuel disruption would be the electrification of transport. This would be an appropriate whole-of-government project, a term which is used to describe AUKUS.

Unfortunately, weapon projects have a limited flow-through to the rest of society, unless one works for a defence contractor (or owns its shares). By contrast, the electrification of transport would benefit virtually every Australian, either through new employment opportunities, lower energy costs and the reduction in the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.

Another way to address resilience is to invest more in education — particularly at the research level — so that smart people can find smart solutions for what Australia and the region needs. Australia should also strive to manufacture more basic medicines and medical supplies, as well as other critical items. In a world of increasing turmoil, Australia can fortunately feed itself, but shortcomings in other areas must be addressed.

The Australian Government’s starting point, however, must be an acceptance and frank articulation of the new reality. In the first instance, I suggest that our leaders begin the journey by stating what is bleedingly obvious elsewhere — the rules-based global order is gone. Australia cannot continue to believe in the magic of AUKUS. A partner we cannot trust is no longer a partner and the sooner we accept this, the better.

 

 

Dr Albert Palazzo is an Adjunct Professor at UNSW-Canberra. He was formerly the long-serving Director of War Studies for the Australian Army.

 

]]>

The present international crisis presents Australia with an opportunity to seek an independent path in the world that will also make the nation more secure in an increasingly tumultuous world, writes Dr Albert Palazzo.

FOR MANY YEARS, the rules-based global order was one of the stated pillars of Australia’s defence policy. It featured in numerous government security documents as well as in statements by government officials. At the same time, our political leaders insisted that the global order was under attack from Russia and China and Australia needed to support the United States in its defence.

The government hardly mentions the words "rules-based global order" these days. It is almost as if it were never genuinely significant despite the effort put into extolling its importance. Perhaps Australia’s political class did not expect the United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, to be the one that destroyed the order that featured so strongly in Australia’s security policy.

When one of the pillars of a nation’s security policy collapses, it is reasonable to expect that a re-examination of that policy will take place. Perhaps the government might even release a statement acknowledging that the situation has changed. In this instance, however, the chosen course of action by Australia’s leaders is to hope that no one has noticed the seismic shift that has occurred. Australia’s total support for the Alliance continues as before, support for the illegal war with Iran is offered and the troubled AUKUS agreement is described as "full steam ahead".

Other countries have not been so hesitant to acknowledge reality. The speech given by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the meeting of the World Economic Forum was an exercise in telling it like it is. The rules-based order is gone and America is now a rapacious hegemon.

The key question Australians need to ask themselves is whether they want to become the vassal of a hegemon. If the hegemon in question was China, the answer would be an immediate resounding no, with the government leading the cheer. Yet this is the trajectory Australia is on in regard to the United States.

I must assume that the Australian Government does not want our nation to become an American vassal, but it is hard to tell.

To avoid such a fate, Australia must join with Europe, Canada and regional states to develop new ways to ensure our security amidst the turmoil and lack of trust Trump has engendered. From a defence perspective, it is essential for Australia to implement an independent national security policy that does not rely on the United States. The days of the "insurance policy" are gone. Our island geography, protected by modern precision strike missiles and long-range drones, allows Australia to defend itself, and to do so at a relatively modest cost.

Instead of building an Australian Defence Force (ADF) that is designed as a subset of the U.S. military, and which slips easily under a U.S. command to fit into the American-made American-led war, Australia should aspire to have a military whose primary purpose is to protect the nation — just like any sovereign state. I outline the necessary steps in my book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia’s National Security.

Securing Australia is not only a matter for the military, however. Australia can play a leading role among middle powers to build new multilateral organisations to advance shared interests and protect itself from potential abuse by a hegemon. Regionally and globally, Australia should work with other states to moderate the power of the new hegemonic-led world order. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) should rightly be the lead for the nation’s security policy, with the Department of Defence in support.

Australia also needs to improve its resilience. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in a fuel crisis that has demonstrated Australia’s vulnerability to overseas shocks which it cannot control. The government needs to implement internal reform so that Australia breaks its reliance on overseas fuels and thereby secures its own future from external interference. One obvious step to reduce the nation’s vulnerability to fuel disruption would be the electrification of transport. This would be an appropriate whole-of-government project, a term which is used to describe AUKUS.

Unfortunately, weapon projects have a limited flow-through to the rest of society, unless one works for a defence contractor (or owns its shares). By contrast, the electrification of transport would benefit virtually every Australian, either through new employment opportunities, lower energy costs and the reduction in the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.

Another way to address resilience is to invest more in education — particularly at the research level — so that smart people can find smart solutions for what Australia and the region needs. Australia should also strive to manufacture more basic medicines and medical supplies, as well as other critical items. In a world of increasing turmoil, Australia can fortunately feed itself, but shortcomings in other areas must be addressed.

The Australian Government’s starting point, however, must be an acceptance and frank articulation of the new reality. In the first instance, I suggest that our leaders begin the journey by stating what is bleedingly obvious elsewhere — the rules-based global order is gone. Australia cannot continue to believe in the magic of AUKUS. A partner we cannot trust is no longer a partner and the sooner we accept this, the better.

 

 

Dr Albert Palazzo is an Adjunct Professor at UNSW-Canberra. He was formerly the long-serving Director of War Studies for the Australian Army.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/specialists-refuse-to-correctly-diagnose-best-economy-ever,20897?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 06 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/specialists-refuse-to-correctly-diagnose-best-economy-ever,20897?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Only once has Australia’s economy achieved near-perfect health. The newsrooms failed to track and record this for 2025, Alan Austin reports.

A BREAST CANCER SURGEON, many years ago, took a tissue sample from a patient and sent it to the lab for analysis. He then asked his nursing assistant to book the patient in for surgery, certain the lump was malignant. Some days later, after the breast had been removed, the biopsy results were returned showing no cancer at all.

The nurse who recounted this story was privately furious with the doctor. Not for the needless surgery. She was outraged that he refused to advise his patient of the biopsy result, allowing her to live the rest of her life believing one cancerous growth had been excised, and hence more would likely develop in the future.

This is an apt analogy for Australians who trust their news analysts to diagnose social health, warn of malignancy and reassure them when apparent threats turn out benign. Those citizens are betrayed. Newsrooms routinely insist disease has invaded when it simply hasn’t.

2025 best year ever

Only once since records were first kept in the 1950s has Australia achieved optimum outcomes through a full calendar year on these four key variables:

• jobless rate below 4.5%;
• headline inflation below 4.0%;
• interest rates within the band 3.0% to 5.0%; and
• annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) above 2.0%.

The latest release from the Bureau of Statistics on finance and wealth now completes the picture for 2025, the third full year with Treasurer Jim Chalmers managing a Labor economy.

The Chalmers' results are the best ever:

• unemployment stayed between 3.99 and 4.45%;
• headline inflation fluctuated from 1.89 to 3.81%;
• interest rates ranged between 3.60 and 4.35%; and
• annual GDP growth to December was 2.56%.

Given last year’s intractable wars, Trump’s tariff turmoil and other disturbances, this is truly remarkable.

By way of comparison, voters returned the Fraser Government to office with a healthy majority in October 1980.

The Fraser economy at the time showed:

• jobless 6.2%;
• inflation 11.0%;
• interest rates 11.2%; and
• annual GDP growth 3.6%.

Inflation and interest rates above 11% were not disqualifying.

Citizens also gave the Hawke Government a solid election win in March 1990, despite this profile:

• jobless 6.1%;
• inflation 7.8%;
• interest rates 17.8%;
• annual GDP growth 3.7%.

That was also considered a job well done.

In March 1993, Paul Keating strengthened his parliamentary position after generating these outcomes:

• jobless 10.8%;
• inflation 0.3%;
• interest rates 5.7%; and
• annual GDP growth 2.6%.

Similarly, in November 2001, the Howard Government won convincingly with these results:

• jobless 6.8%;
• inflation 6.1%;
• interest rates 4.8%; and
• annual GDP growth 1.7%.

Constant media mendacity

Those governments could only dream of inflation below 4.0%, where it has been for 27 months. And interest rates between 3.0% and 5.0%, the outcome for the last 39 months. And the jobless below 4.5%, the reality now for 51 months.

Yet the craven newsrooms insist the Australian dream is "dead", interest rates are a "horror scenario", and a "failed experiment" haunting Australia, whose very "survival" is at risk. They falsely assert the cost of living is a "nightmare", a "crisis", a "rental hell" and a "dire reality" which is "getting crazier".

Commenting on Prime Minister Albanese’s speech to the nation about the potential fuel crisis last Wednesday, Patricia Karvelas said this on ABC News:

“Over that period [Easter holidays] Australians are going in with a sense of apprehension, a sense of anxiety economically... because we have a baked-in inflation problem in this country. And we’ve been hearing some bleak news, there’s been an interest rate rise.”

Myths about malignant inflation

Australia does not have an inflation crisis. It is higher than perfect, but only slightly. Malcolm Fraser had a baked-in problem at 11.0%.

Recent rate rises are not “bleak news” and should not elicit “a sense of anxiety”.

Instead, six realities should be hammered home:

1. Higher interest rates encourage more savings which increase funds available for new home buyers.

2. Historically, elevated inflation and interest rates have enabled Australia’s high home ownership.

Germany has 2.7% inflation, interest at 2.15% and 47% home ownership. Switzerland has 0.3% inflation, 0% interest and 36% ownership. Australia has 3.76% inflation, 4.1% interest rates and 66% home ownership.

3. Cyclically elevated inflation has increased home values enormously. Extra repayments mortgage holders incur when interest rates rise are returned abundantly later as properties appreciate.

As John Howard memorably said in 2003, when defending interest rates around 5.0%:

“I haven't found anybody in seven and a half years shake their fist at me and say ‘Howard, I'm angry with you for letting the value of my house increase’.”

4. Rates were below 2.8% for almost ten years from 2013 to 2022. They were below 1% for nearly three. That impoverished countless retirees relying on interest payments to survive.

5. Rates were above 7.0% for 19 years from 1973 to 1992 and higher than 15% for nearly five. That was challenging, but wasn’t a ‘horror scenario’.

6. Rates between 3.0% and 5.0% offer a fair return for savers without burdening borrowers unreasonably. Today’s 4.1% is near perfect.\

Where are the celebrations?

In most nations, a year with best-ever outcomes would be applauded. But not Australia.

The only residents even aware that last year’s outcomes are the best on record are those reading this analysis. No other outlet has reported this, as far as thorough searches reveal. This is a great pity when serious global risks loom and the more confidence citizens have in governments the better.

Going though life in dread of a fatal infection which is not indicated by any symptoms actually is a dire situation.

]]>

Only once has Australia’s economy achieved near-perfect health. The newsrooms failed to track and record this for 2025, Alan Austin reports.

A BREAST CANCER SURGEON, many years ago, took a tissue sample from a patient and sent it to the lab for analysis. He then asked his nursing assistant to book the patient in for surgery, certain the lump was malignant. Some days later, after the breast had been removed, the biopsy results were returned showing no cancer at all.

The nurse who recounted this story was privately furious with the doctor. Not for the needless surgery. She was outraged that he refused to advise his patient of the biopsy result, allowing her to live the rest of her life believing one cancerous growth had been excised, and hence more would likely develop in the future.

This is an apt analogy for Australians who trust their news analysts to diagnose social health, warn of malignancy and reassure them when apparent threats turn out benign. Those citizens are betrayed. Newsrooms routinely insist disease has invaded when it simply hasn’t.

2025 best year ever

Only once since records were first kept in the 1950s has Australia achieved optimum outcomes through a full calendar year on these four key variables:

• jobless rate below 4.5%;
• headline inflation below 4.0%;
• interest rates within the band 3.0% to 5.0%; and
• annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) above 2.0%.

The latest release from the Bureau of Statistics on finance and wealth now completes the picture for 2025, the third full year with Treasurer Jim Chalmers managing a Labor economy.

The Chalmers' results are the best ever:

• unemployment stayed between 3.99 and 4.45%;
• headline inflation fluctuated from 1.89 to 3.81%;
• interest rates ranged between 3.60 and 4.35%; and
• annual GDP growth to December was 2.56%.

Given last year’s intractable wars, Trump’s tariff turmoil and other disturbances, this is truly remarkable.

By way of comparison, voters returned the Fraser Government to office with a healthy majority in October 1980.

The Fraser economy at the time showed:

• jobless 6.2%;
• inflation 11.0%;
• interest rates 11.2%; and
• annual GDP growth 3.6%.

Inflation and interest rates above 11% were not disqualifying.

Citizens also gave the Hawke Government a solid election win in March 1990, despite this profile:

• jobless 6.1%;
• inflation 7.8%;
• interest rates 17.8%;
• annual GDP growth 3.7%.

That was also considered a job well done.

In March 1993, Paul Keating strengthened his parliamentary position after generating these outcomes:

• jobless 10.8%;
• inflation 0.3%;
• interest rates 5.7%; and
• annual GDP growth 2.6%.

Similarly, in November 2001, the Howard Government won convincingly with these results:

• jobless 6.8%;
• inflation 6.1%;
• interest rates 4.8%; and
• annual GDP growth 1.7%.

Constant media mendacity

Those governments could only dream of inflation below 4.0%, where it has been for 27 months. And interest rates between 3.0% and 5.0%, the outcome for the last 39 months. And the jobless below 4.5%, the reality now for 51 months.

Yet the craven newsrooms insist the Australian dream is "dead", interest rates are a "horror scenario", and a "failed experiment" haunting Australia, whose very "survival" is at risk. They falsely assert the cost of living is a "nightmare", a "crisis", a "rental hell" and a "dire reality" which is "getting crazier".

Commenting on Prime Minister Albanese’s speech to the nation about the potential fuel crisis last Wednesday, Patricia Karvelas said this on ABC News:

“Over that period [Easter holidays] Australians are going in with a sense of apprehension, a sense of anxiety economically... because we have a baked-in inflation problem in this country. And we’ve been hearing some bleak news, there’s been an interest rate rise.”

Myths about malignant inflation

Australia does not have an inflation crisis. It is higher than perfect, but only slightly. Malcolm Fraser had a baked-in problem at 11.0%.

Recent rate rises are not “bleak news” and should not elicit “a sense of anxiety”.

Instead, six realities should be hammered home:

1. Higher interest rates encourage more savings which increase funds available for new home buyers.

2. Historically, elevated inflation and interest rates have enabled Australia’s high home ownership.

Germany has 2.7% inflation, interest at 2.15% and 47% home ownership. Switzerland has 0.3% inflation, 0% interest and 36% ownership. Australia has 3.76% inflation, 4.1% interest rates and 66% home ownership.

3. Cyclically elevated inflation has increased home values enormously. Extra repayments mortgage holders incur when interest rates rise are returned abundantly later as properties appreciate.

As John Howard memorably said in 2003, when defending interest rates around 5.0%:

“I haven't found anybody in seven and a half years shake their fist at me and say ‘Howard, I'm angry with you for letting the value of my house increase’.”

4. Rates were below 2.8% for almost ten years from 2013 to 2022. They were below 1% for nearly three. That impoverished countless retirees relying on interest payments to survive.

5. Rates were above 7.0% for 19 years from 1973 to 1992 and higher than 15% for nearly five. That was challenging, but wasn’t a ‘horror scenario’.

6. Rates between 3.0% and 5.0% offer a fair return for savers without burdening borrowers unreasonably. Today’s 4.1% is near perfect.\

Where are the celebrations?

In most nations, a year with best-ever outcomes would be applauded. But not Australia.

The only residents even aware that last year’s outcomes are the best on record are those reading this analysis. No other outlet has reported this, as far as thorough searches reveal. This is a great pity when serious global risks loom and the more confidence citizens have in governments the better.

Going though life in dread of a fatal infection which is not indicated by any symptoms actually is a dire situation.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/diesel-too-dear-give-the-vintage-tractor-a-run,20894?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sun, 05 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/diesel-too-dear-give-the-vintage-tractor-a-run,20894?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Tractors at ten paces: Winston Chivell's vintage Farmall Cub fronts up to his son's diesel-run 1986 Case International, at their property near Birchip, Victoria. (Photo, circa 2004.)

Given the current price of diesel, this petrol-powered Cub could give today's turbo tank a run for its money!

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]>

Tractors at ten paces: Winston Chivell's vintage Farmall Cub fronts up to his son's diesel-run 1986 Case International, at their property near Birchip, Victoria. (Photo, circa 2004.)

Given the current price of diesel, this petrol-powered Cub could give today's turbo tank a run for its money!

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/suggested-cabinet-submission-for-2026-27-migrationhumanitarian-program,20895?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sun, 05 Apr 2026 08:40:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/suggested-cabinet-submission-for-2026-27-migrationhumanitarian-program,20895?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The Albanese Government is about to consider a cabinet submission on the 26-27 migration program. Former Immigration Department Deputy Secretary Dr Abul Rizvi  has drafted IA's submission.

IN THE NEXT few weeks and before the Farrer by-election, the Albanese Government will likely consider a cabinet submission on the 26-27 migration program. I helped develop a decade’s worth of migration Cabinet submissions between 1995 and 2006. But none would have been as difficult to draft as the one for 2026-27.

That is not just because of the multitude of issues that need to be addressed, but because it has to be developed against the background of a surging One Nation with its usual simplistic immigration ideas, as well as a Coalition desperate to stem the flow of votes to One Nation through populist immigration slogans rather than a long-term plan.

I thought if I should draft the submission I would suggest to the Albanese Government (note this is written as if Immigration Minister Tony Burke is the author).

RIZVI CABINET SUBMISSION

The 2026-27 migration/humanitarian programs must address three main challenges:

1. At Question Time, the Prime Minister implicitly endorsed Treasury’s net migration forecast, but the latest net migration data means we are still a long way from delivering those despite extensive policy tightening from mid-2023 and in recent months.
2. Application backlogs and rising demand for permanent migration, particularly partners, employer-sponsored and state-nominated migration, are well beyond the places available, particularly due to the surge in net migration from 2022.
3. Flow through from students and working holiday makers, even under current policy settings, will keep net migration above Treasury forecasts and keep increasing pressure on permanent migration. The stock of temporary entrants in Australia of almost 3 million is up over a million over the last decade due to successive governments failing to develop a plan for and manage net migration. Three million temporary entrants are incompatible with the size of the current permanent intake.

As recommended by the 2023 Parkinson Review and endorsed by the Government prior to the 2025 Election, we must develop a long-term migration plan and properly explain the underlying rationale of the plan to the Australian public. An aim of this would be to counter the simplistic sloganeering from One Nation and the Coalition.

The plan should be based on delivering the net migration forecasts that were in place prior to the last Election and endorsed recently by the Prime Minister. While the 260,000 net migration forecast for 2025-26 is now unlikely to be delivered, given net migration for the September quarter of 2025-26 was already at 87,000, there is still time to make the necessary policy changes to deliver the 2026-27 forecast of 225,000.

We should explicitly and publicly commit to delivering net migration at 225,000 per annum (plus or minus 10,000). That would be a reduction of net migration of almost 100,000 compared to the 311,000 net migration estimate for the 12 months to September 2025. It would result in long-term population growth of initially around 325,000 per annum, with natural increase gradually declining given the current fertility rate and population ageing.

If we deliver the Treasury net migration forecasts, compared to projections in the last Budget before COVID (such as 2019, which assumed net migration of around 270,000 per annum), our population by 2030-31 would be around 750,000 less and slightly older in terms of median age and the age dependency ratio.

The slower rate of population growth would help infrastructure, housing and service delivery to catch up. It would fill the current vacuum in long-term immigration policy and give businesses, government agencies and the public the predictability they are seeking. It would reduce the risk of the wild fluctuations in net migration that comparable nations have experienced in recent years.

Permanent migration

We should maintain the current migration program at 185,000 plus 3,270 Pacific Engagement Visas (PEVs), but change the composition to address unsustainable backlogs. Note: the permanent migration intake makes a relatively small contribution to net migration.

By end 2025-26, we may have a record backlog of around 120,000 partner applications and growing rapidly. Migration law requires us to manage these on a demand-driven basis. We may also have a backlog of around 70,000 Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) applications and also growing rapidly. All state/territory governments are demanding more places for state-nominated visas to meet their needs, including in regional Australia, due to the strong labour market.

We must reduce the backlog of partner applications through three measures:

1. Expansion of the partner planning level over three years, well above the current 40,500.
2. Tighter criteria for partner visas, including increased minimum age of both the sponsor and applicant; longer cohabitation requirement for de facto relationships; a minimum period couples must be married at the time of application criteria; and closure of the prospective marriage visa to new applicants to give priority to people who are already married.
3. Gradual reduction in the stock of temporary entrants in Australia.

The backlog of ENS applications must also be reduced through similar measures, including an increase in places for ENS above the current 44,000, as well as a longer minimum period of skilled work experience requirement to slow the rate of growth in new applications.

To accommodate additional places for partners and ENS, we should temporarily reduce places for skilled independents, parents and the humanitarian program. Some reduction in places for state/territory-nominated and regional visas may also be necessary.

Temporary entrant stocks

To reduce the flow through to demand for permanent residence from students and temporary graduates, cease relying on high offshore student visa refusal rates using highly subjective criteria. That approach is poorly targeted, inefficient, creates far too much uncertainty, as well as a record number of appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Instead:

• Use a high integrity and high security university entrance exam (and another objective method for construction trades) to ensure we attract students of the highest academic standards and use the exam pass mark to better manage overall numbers (some concession in the pass mark may be needed for genuinely regional universities not just those with metropolitan campuses);
• Limit onshore student visas to those enrolled in high-quality courses that lead to skills in long-term demand — that will also reduce student visa appeals to the A.R.T., where we now have a backlog of around 50,000 and growing; and
• Limit temporary graduate visas to those students who have completed high-quality courses in areas of long-term skills in demand. That will, over time, reduce the number of people on temporary graduate visas, which are also at record levels.

The above measures would help reduce net migration towards the Treasury forecast for 2026-27 and also reduce the stock of temporary entrants. But these may not be sufficient.

To reduce net migration and the temporary entry stock, other measures should include the following:

1. Abolish the option of a third visa for working holiday makers/work and holiday visa holders; standardise each working holiday maker visa to one-year validity and a maximum age of 30; and apply English language testing to all working holiday maker visa types not just for selected non-English speaking nations (for example, why apply English language testing for Spanish working holiday makers and not French?).
2. Revert to the two-year skilled work experience requirement for skilled temporary visas (adjust length of temporary graduate visas as required).
3. Revert to requirement for NZ citizens to go through the permanent residence phase in order to access Australian citizenship.
4. Count the Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) within the migration program (as this is a permanent visa, but for no logical reason, it is currently not counted in the program) and confine it to Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) visa holders who develop recognised skills relevant to higher pay jobs on farms, construction sites, etcetera. Abolish the lottery system for the PEV, as that is a very poor method for selecting permanent migrants. Allow PALM visa holders to access TAFE courses and English language courses on a fee-free basis, and require employers to give their employees time off to attend these courses. This should also reduce the incentive for PALM visa holders to apply for asylum. We should also introduce a basic English language requirement for PALM visa applicants.
5. Further measures to encourage more unsuccessful asylum seekers to depart (both incentives and penalties). While the additional processing funding we allocated has led to a reduction in both the primary and review backlogs, the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers not departed continues to grow. It is now over 104,600 refused at primary level and over 65,900 refused at both primary and review. That situation increases worker exploitation and undermines confidence in our immigration and asylum systems. This number cannot be allowed to continue to grow.
6. Despite measures to reduce migrant worker exploitation, this continues to be a significant issue, as a recent government investigation has found. While much has been done in this space, we need to further strengthen penalties against employers who exploit migrant workers, including criminal penalties, as well as further increase immigration compliance activity. Information provided to migrant workers on their rights must be increased.

Impact of proposed changes and likely stakeholder reactions

The overall impact of these changes should be broadly budget-positive due to the increase in ENS places and the reduction in parent and humanitarian program places. The reduced-skilled independent places and state/territory government-nominated places would be a budget negative, while partners tend to be budget neutral. There would be criticism of the shift in the balance away from the skill stream, but that shift should be temporary.

There would be a negligible impact on the unemployment and inflation rate and, all things equal, slightly slower economic and employment growth. Better targeting of long-term skill needs should help to address skill shortages, both current and projected. It means the population will age slightly faster, but Australia would still be ageing more slowly than comparable countries and major trading partners.

Ageing will continue to require us to attract sufficient health and aged care workers, particularly if we are to reduce hospital waiting times or at least prevent these from increasing further.

A shift in the balance of the intake towards partners and a reduction in net migration would reduce pressure on housing. An increase in housing completions would still be needed. To help with this, we need a visa mechanism to attract more applications from highly skilled trade workers who can quickly adjust to Australia’s licensing requirements, including English language skills.

Canada has seen a 20 per cent reduction in house prices (but only a very marginal reduction in rents) and there has been media reporting that we should therefore copy Canada. That would be a mistake. Canada had a much steeper and larger increase in house prices post-COVID than Australia. The subsequent decline in house prices in Canada was due to record housing completions over 2-3 years and close to zero net migration in 2025, but with a much larger permanent migration program than us.

Canada’s zero net migration was delivered through a combination of a very weak labour market and massive tightening of student visa policy that decimated the budgets of most Canadian universities, leading to huge job cuts and a flow-through impact on surrounding businesses. That is not a model we want to copy. Canada will soon need to reverse its immigration policy tightening, given that they are much more aged than us, with a much lower fertility rate. Extreme fluctuations in net migration reflect poor policy and poor migration management.

While there will be criticism of our proposed changes from certain industry bodies, particularly the international education, agriculture and tourism industries, the benefits of long-term certainty in terms of net migration levels would outweigh these criticisms. Employer groups will oppose stronger penalties for employers who exploit migrant workers.

A negative reaction from all state/territory governments and regional development bodies to a reduction in their allocations would also need to be managed. Some of the changes would need to be negotiated with a range of nations, including the UK, NZ and Pacific Island nations.  

There would be a negative reaction from some parts of the community to changes to partner visa criteria and reduction in parent places. Refugee advocates would criticise any reduction in humanitarian places. However, all of these critics would support the additional places for partners, which should be the highest priority.

A number of the above changes would require legislative/regulatory amendments that could be opposed/disallowed in the Senate.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.

]]>

The Albanese Government is about to consider a cabinet submission on the 26-27 migration program. Former Immigration Department Deputy Secretary Dr Abul Rizvi  has drafted IA's submission.

IN THE NEXT few weeks and before the Farrer by-election, the Albanese Government will likely consider a cabinet submission on the 26-27 migration program. I helped develop a decade’s worth of migration Cabinet submissions between 1995 and 2006. But none would have been as difficult to draft as the one for 2026-27.

That is not just because of the multitude of issues that need to be addressed, but because it has to be developed against the background of a surging One Nation with its usual simplistic immigration ideas, as well as a Coalition desperate to stem the flow of votes to One Nation through populist immigration slogans rather than a long-term plan.

I thought if I should draft the submission I would suggest to the Albanese Government (note this is written as if Immigration Minister Tony Burke is the author).

RIZVI CABINET SUBMISSION

The 2026-27 migration/humanitarian programs must address three main challenges:

1. At Question Time, the Prime Minister implicitly endorsed Treasury’s net migration forecast, but the latest net migration data means we are still a long way from delivering those despite extensive policy tightening from mid-2023 and in recent months.
2. Application backlogs and rising demand for permanent migration, particularly partners, employer-sponsored and state-nominated migration, are well beyond the places available, particularly due to the surge in net migration from 2022.
3. Flow through from students and working holiday makers, even under current policy settings, will keep net migration above Treasury forecasts and keep increasing pressure on permanent migration. The stock of temporary entrants in Australia of almost 3 million is up over a million over the last decade due to successive governments failing to develop a plan for and manage net migration. Three million temporary entrants are incompatible with the size of the current permanent intake.

As recommended by the 2023 Parkinson Review and endorsed by the Government prior to the 2025 Election, we must develop a long-term migration plan and properly explain the underlying rationale of the plan to the Australian public. An aim of this would be to counter the simplistic sloganeering from One Nation and the Coalition.

The plan should be based on delivering the net migration forecasts that were in place prior to the last Election and endorsed recently by the Prime Minister. While the 260,000 net migration forecast for 2025-26 is now unlikely to be delivered, given net migration for the September quarter of 2025-26 was already at 87,000, there is still time to make the necessary policy changes to deliver the 2026-27 forecast of 225,000.

We should explicitly and publicly commit to delivering net migration at 225,000 per annum (plus or minus 10,000). That would be a reduction of net migration of almost 100,000 compared to the 311,000 net migration estimate for the 12 months to September 2025. It would result in long-term population growth of initially around 325,000 per annum, with natural increase gradually declining given the current fertility rate and population ageing.

If we deliver the Treasury net migration forecasts, compared to projections in the last Budget before COVID (such as 2019, which assumed net migration of around 270,000 per annum), our population by 2030-31 would be around 750,000 less and slightly older in terms of median age and the age dependency ratio.

The slower rate of population growth would help infrastructure, housing and service delivery to catch up. It would fill the current vacuum in long-term immigration policy and give businesses, government agencies and the public the predictability they are seeking. It would reduce the risk of the wild fluctuations in net migration that comparable nations have experienced in recent years.

Permanent migration

We should maintain the current migration program at 185,000 plus 3,270 Pacific Engagement Visas (PEVs), but change the composition to address unsustainable backlogs. Note: the permanent migration intake makes a relatively small contribution to net migration.

By end 2025-26, we may have a record backlog of around 120,000 partner applications and growing rapidly. Migration law requires us to manage these on a demand-driven basis. We may also have a backlog of around 70,000 Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) applications and also growing rapidly. All state/territory governments are demanding more places for state-nominated visas to meet their needs, including in regional Australia, due to the strong labour market.

We must reduce the backlog of partner applications through three measures:

1. Expansion of the partner planning level over three years, well above the current 40,500.
2. Tighter criteria for partner visas, including increased minimum age of both the sponsor and applicant; longer cohabitation requirement for de facto relationships; a minimum period couples must be married at the time of application criteria; and closure of the prospective marriage visa to new applicants to give priority to people who are already married.
3. Gradual reduction in the stock of temporary entrants in Australia.

The backlog of ENS applications must also be reduced through similar measures, including an increase in places for ENS above the current 44,000, as well as a longer minimum period of skilled work experience requirement to slow the rate of growth in new applications.

To accommodate additional places for partners and ENS, we should temporarily reduce places for skilled independents, parents and the humanitarian program. Some reduction in places for state/territory-nominated and regional visas may also be necessary.

Temporary entrant stocks

To reduce the flow through to demand for permanent residence from students and temporary graduates, cease relying on high offshore student visa refusal rates using highly subjective criteria. That approach is poorly targeted, inefficient, creates far too much uncertainty, as well as a record number of appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Instead:

• Use a high integrity and high security university entrance exam (and another objective method for construction trades) to ensure we attract students of the highest academic standards and use the exam pass mark to better manage overall numbers (some concession in the pass mark may be needed for genuinely regional universities not just those with metropolitan campuses);
• Limit onshore student visas to those enrolled in high-quality courses that lead to skills in long-term demand — that will also reduce student visa appeals to the A.R.T., where we now have a backlog of around 50,000 and growing; and
• Limit temporary graduate visas to those students who have completed high-quality courses in areas of long-term skills in demand. That will, over time, reduce the number of people on temporary graduate visas, which are also at record levels.

The above measures would help reduce net migration towards the Treasury forecast for 2026-27 and also reduce the stock of temporary entrants. But these may not be sufficient.

To reduce net migration and the temporary entry stock, other measures should include the following:

1. Abolish the option of a third visa for working holiday makers/work and holiday visa holders; standardise each working holiday maker visa to one-year validity and a maximum age of 30; and apply English language testing to all working holiday maker visa types not just for selected non-English speaking nations (for example, why apply English language testing for Spanish working holiday makers and not French?).
2. Revert to the two-year skilled work experience requirement for skilled temporary visas (adjust length of temporary graduate visas as required).
3. Revert to requirement for NZ citizens to go through the permanent residence phase in order to access Australian citizenship.
4. Count the Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) within the migration program (as this is a permanent visa, but for no logical reason, it is currently not counted in the program) and confine it to Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) visa holders who develop recognised skills relevant to higher pay jobs on farms, construction sites, etcetera. Abolish the lottery system for the PEV, as that is a very poor method for selecting permanent migrants. Allow PALM visa holders to access TAFE courses and English language courses on a fee-free basis, and require employers to give their employees time off to attend these courses. This should also reduce the incentive for PALM visa holders to apply for asylum. We should also introduce a basic English language requirement for PALM visa applicants.
5. Further measures to encourage more unsuccessful asylum seekers to depart (both incentives and penalties). While the additional processing funding we allocated has led to a reduction in both the primary and review backlogs, the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers not departed continues to grow. It is now over 104,600 refused at primary level and over 65,900 refused at both primary and review. That situation increases worker exploitation and undermines confidence in our immigration and asylum systems. This number cannot be allowed to continue to grow.
6. Despite measures to reduce migrant worker exploitation, this continues to be a significant issue, as a recent government investigation has found. While much has been done in this space, we need to further strengthen penalties against employers who exploit migrant workers, including criminal penalties, as well as further increase immigration compliance activity. Information provided to migrant workers on their rights must be increased.

Impact of proposed changes and likely stakeholder reactions

The overall impact of these changes should be broadly budget-positive due to the increase in ENS places and the reduction in parent and humanitarian program places. The reduced-skilled independent places and state/territory government-nominated places would be a budget negative, while partners tend to be budget neutral. There would be criticism of the shift in the balance away from the skill stream, but that shift should be temporary.

There would be a negligible impact on the unemployment and inflation rate and, all things equal, slightly slower economic and employment growth. Better targeting of long-term skill needs should help to address skill shortages, both current and projected. It means the population will age slightly faster, but Australia would still be ageing more slowly than comparable countries and major trading partners.

Ageing will continue to require us to attract sufficient health and aged care workers, particularly if we are to reduce hospital waiting times or at least prevent these from increasing further.

A shift in the balance of the intake towards partners and a reduction in net migration would reduce pressure on housing. An increase in housing completions would still be needed. To help with this, we need a visa mechanism to attract more applications from highly skilled trade workers who can quickly adjust to Australia’s licensing requirements, including English language skills.

Canada has seen a 20 per cent reduction in house prices (but only a very marginal reduction in rents) and there has been media reporting that we should therefore copy Canada. That would be a mistake. Canada had a much steeper and larger increase in house prices post-COVID than Australia. The subsequent decline in house prices in Canada was due to record housing completions over 2-3 years and close to zero net migration in 2025, but with a much larger permanent migration program than us.

Canada’s zero net migration was delivered through a combination of a very weak labour market and massive tightening of student visa policy that decimated the budgets of most Canadian universities, leading to huge job cuts and a flow-through impact on surrounding businesses. That is not a model we want to copy. Canada will soon need to reverse its immigration policy tightening, given that they are much more aged than us, with a much lower fertility rate. Extreme fluctuations in net migration reflect poor policy and poor migration management.

While there will be criticism of our proposed changes from certain industry bodies, particularly the international education, agriculture and tourism industries, the benefits of long-term certainty in terms of net migration levels would outweigh these criticisms. Employer groups will oppose stronger penalties for employers who exploit migrant workers.

A negative reaction from all state/territory governments and regional development bodies to a reduction in their allocations would also need to be managed. Some of the changes would need to be negotiated with a range of nations, including the UK, NZ and Pacific Island nations.  

There would be a negative reaction from some parts of the community to changes to partner visa criteria and reduction in parent places. Refugee advocates would criticise any reduction in humanitarian places. However, all of these critics would support the additional places for partners, which should be the highest priority.

A number of the above changes would require legislative/regulatory amendments that could be opposed/disallowed in the Senate.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/cartoons-pollies-petrol-prices-and-trumps-imperious-plans,20881?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 03 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/cartoons-pollies-petrol-prices-and-trumps-imperious-plans,20881?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Amid a mountain of Murdoch media bias...

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

]]>

Amid a mountain of Murdoch media bias...

Check out Mark's YouTube channel, where he teaches you how to draw cartoons!

Mark David is IA's resident cartoonist. You can see more of his cartoons on his website, Mark David Cartoons, or follow him on Twitter/X @mdavidcartoons.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/vale-desmond-filby-accused-child-flasher,20891?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 04 Apr 2026 11:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/vale-desmond-filby-accused-child-flasher,20891?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Desmond Filby, the man commonly called by the media "Dezi Freeman", was shot by police, but should instead be remembered for his alleged child sexual abuse, argues Tom Tanuki.

I naively assumed that after seeing Desmond Filby shot dead by police officers in Thologolong, some seven months after he first escaped arrest, we might see the press stop referring to him by his Sovereign Citizen (SovCit) movement cosplay name "Dezi Freeman".

I suppose the gripping theatre of it all is just too thrilling to abandon just for a bit of restraint.

But I’ll never understand why we’ve all helped scrub the man of the stain of accusations around historical child sexual offences.

I know SovCit ideology is very thrilling. I admit to having been thrilled myself. In 2022, I created a two-hour, two-part YouTube documentary on all aspects of sovereign citizen (or pseudolaw) ideology locally. (I’m surprised to see my work may remain the most effective starter resource in Australia for anyone trying to really understand how it all works.)

In that work, I covered all sorts of novel individuals with all sorts of wacky alt-identities. I enjoyed the process, and it’s evident in the video that I did; it’s a fun deep-dive into the weird excesses and bizarre mavericks one used to find around the Australian sov cit fringe.

One thing that has really dated is my tone in the documentary.  Back then, we were still enjoying the "ominous warning" phase of the local sovereign citizenry’s potential for violence. Toward the end of Part One, for example, I covered an armed police raid on the farm of a couple who were reported to have guns on the property. Nobody got hurt. I warned about the potential for more of that.

It seems quaint in 2026. We were still some way away from the Trains’ shootout. Or the appearance of SovCit child kidnapping rings. Or the murders by, and later of, Desmond Filby.

Nowadays, as the violence and impact of the political and conspiracist fringe has risen, so has the preponderance of "specialists" and academics ready to provide comment for mainstream media pieces. They often furnish the scene for further laws and police or surveillance resources allocated to studying this fringe.

Salacious video documentation of the latest strange act of a SovCit is frequently blended nowadays with comment from media ring-in and friend of the column Josh Roose, for example. Roose, in this context, keeps himself busy repeating things he learned from my SovCit documentary or repeating things ASIO Mike Burgess and the cops usually say about extremists. None of it adds any value. But it keeps your average Rooses in the public eye, which is good for their jobs and it gives the media an excuse to entertain their audiences with interesting SovCit videos.So, Desmond Filby’s documented history of increasingly conflict-oriented SovCit conduct, culminating in an attempted "trial" of Daniel Andrews in the months before he shot and killed two police officers in Porepunkah, was always going to make for gripping media after the shooting. It supplied a steady drip-feed of months’ worth of mainstream media articles, "exposés" into the ideology of sovereign citizenry and countless "expert" ring-in comments.

But we never learned to call him by his actual name. It seems strange in the context of his sov cit alter-ego turning toward killing people.

A cursory check of the ABC archives reveals there’s 159 ABC articles with "Dezi Freeman" in the material, and just three with his real name.

In a rare bit of excellent restraint and reflection from the ABC, 'What’s in a name? The media has a duty to avoid making a martyr out of Desmond Filby', academic Jessica Wilson (choosing to label him "DF") considers:

I want to stress that the media coverage of the shooting and subsequent manhunt has contributed to the construction a kind of subversive mythology surrounding "DF". Despite being charged with historical sexual offences and allegedly killing two police officers, DF was not made a pariah by the Australian public. Quite the opposite, in fact. DF wasn’t some wacko religious nut – like the Trains at Wieambilla – but an outlaw, a bushman, a rebel. Australia’s cultural sympathy toward the underdog, aversion to government institutions and glorification of the masculine “skilled bushman” archetype helped transform DF from a lone mass killer into a folk hero. His long time on the run seemingly did nothing but elevate this anti-hero status.

Filby has blossomed into our SovCit Ned Kelly. Mostly because we appear to really want one of those.

Any news about Filby is an invitation to consider what opposite scenario might actually have played out. Did he kill cops? Well then, he didn’t kill cops and they’re just saying it to target him. Are they telling us he’s dead? Well then, he’s not really dead. Did he die by cop?  Well then, he died another way. While also not having died.

Such is the conspiracist "anti-hero status" Filby enjoys, like Wilson observed.

Filby shot police after they arrived at his home with a search warrant, as part of an investigation into historical child sexual abuse accusations — namely that he, an adult man, had taken his clothes off in the presence of a little girl who was "traumatised" by the experience.

So in short, Filby shot and murdered the police who were trying to investigate whether or not he was a child flasher. Even I, generally abolitioninist in my opinions about police forces, think that’s an excellent example of cops making themselves useful.

I have found general consideration of this fact taking a confounding backseat in the Filby narrative ever since it came out. Either that, or it has been subject to the conspiracist myth-making denialism discussed above:

“Skinny dipping is sexual assault now, is it?” (Sourced from Facebook.)

I have seen Filby described online as a "Martyr of Resistance Against State Tyranny". (Again, sourced from Facebook — where else?)

I continue to dwell on whether the proliferation of deep-dives, exposés and think pieces ominously warning around the "rise of Sovereign Citizen ideology" has helped to fuel this anti-hero culture. Naturally, the SovCit networks that aided and abetted Filby must be scrutinised. But I wonder at how, while the ABC taps Roose for another borrowed warning, the Facebook comments section seems to bloom with more and more layperson defences for the deceased, accused child flasher.

Should we consider whether this culture of mainstream media scrutiny and layperson fascination helps make predators look like martyrs?

It reminds me of former NSN members, such as the recently-bailed Joel Davis. Davis hitched a free ride to near-constant tabloid press coverage, simply by virtue of his vocal membership of the White Supremacist group he was a part of. But in a more sane world, what he’d forever be known for would be his documented staunch advocacy for child marriage. In a more sane world, the press would remember his paedophilia decriminalisation advocacy before deciding to pass him the mic again.

Alas, we live in clown world. And apparently, in clown world, the best way to have everyone forget you might be a child abuser is by also telling them that you’re a SovCit or a Nazi.

But I will never forget Desmond Filby’s child sexual abuse accusations. I don’t think he shot them out of existence. In my unpopular worldview, they are what I think he should be remembered for.

Tom Tanuki is an IA columnist, writer, satirist and anti-fascist activist whose weekly videos commenting on the Australian political fringe appear on YouTube. You can follow him on Twitter/X @tom_tanuki.

]]>

Desmond Filby, the man commonly called by the media "Dezi Freeman", was shot by police, but should instead be remembered for his alleged child sexual abuse, argues Tom Tanuki.

I naively assumed that after seeing Desmond Filby shot dead by police officers in Thologolong, some seven months after he first escaped arrest, we might see the press stop referring to him by his Sovereign Citizen (SovCit) movement cosplay name "Dezi Freeman".

I suppose the gripping theatre of it all is just too thrilling to abandon just for a bit of restraint.

But I’ll never understand why we’ve all helped scrub the man of the stain of accusations around historical child sexual offences.

I know SovCit ideology is very thrilling. I admit to having been thrilled myself. In 2022, I created a two-hour, two-part YouTube documentary on all aspects of sovereign citizen (or pseudolaw) ideology locally. (I’m surprised to see my work may remain the most effective starter resource in Australia for anyone trying to really understand how it all works.)

In that work, I covered all sorts of novel individuals with all sorts of wacky alt-identities. I enjoyed the process, and it’s evident in the video that I did; it’s a fun deep-dive into the weird excesses and bizarre mavericks one used to find around the Australian sov cit fringe.

One thing that has really dated is my tone in the documentary.  Back then, we were still enjoying the "ominous warning" phase of the local sovereign citizenry’s potential for violence. Toward the end of Part One, for example, I covered an armed police raid on the farm of a couple who were reported to have guns on the property. Nobody got hurt. I warned about the potential for more of that.

It seems quaint in 2026. We were still some way away from the Trains’ shootout. Or the appearance of SovCit child kidnapping rings. Or the murders by, and later of, Desmond Filby.

Nowadays, as the violence and impact of the political and conspiracist fringe has risen, so has the preponderance of "specialists" and academics ready to provide comment for mainstream media pieces. They often furnish the scene for further laws and police or surveillance resources allocated to studying this fringe.

Salacious video documentation of the latest strange act of a SovCit is frequently blended nowadays with comment from media ring-in and friend of the column Josh Roose, for example. Roose, in this context, keeps himself busy repeating things he learned from my SovCit documentary or repeating things ASIO Mike Burgess and the cops usually say about extremists. None of it adds any value. But it keeps your average Rooses in the public eye, which is good for their jobs and it gives the media an excuse to entertain their audiences with interesting SovCit videos.So, Desmond Filby’s documented history of increasingly conflict-oriented SovCit conduct, culminating in an attempted "trial" of Daniel Andrews in the months before he shot and killed two police officers in Porepunkah, was always going to make for gripping media after the shooting. It supplied a steady drip-feed of months’ worth of mainstream media articles, "exposés" into the ideology of sovereign citizenry and countless "expert" ring-in comments.

But we never learned to call him by his actual name. It seems strange in the context of his sov cit alter-ego turning toward killing people.

A cursory check of the ABC archives reveals there’s 159 ABC articles with "Dezi Freeman" in the material, and just three with his real name.

In a rare bit of excellent restraint and reflection from the ABC, 'What’s in a name? The media has a duty to avoid making a martyr out of Desmond Filby', academic Jessica Wilson (choosing to label him "DF") considers:

I want to stress that the media coverage of the shooting and subsequent manhunt has contributed to the construction a kind of subversive mythology surrounding "DF". Despite being charged with historical sexual offences and allegedly killing two police officers, DF was not made a pariah by the Australian public. Quite the opposite, in fact. DF wasn’t some wacko religious nut – like the Trains at Wieambilla – but an outlaw, a bushman, a rebel. Australia’s cultural sympathy toward the underdog, aversion to government institutions and glorification of the masculine “skilled bushman” archetype helped transform DF from a lone mass killer into a folk hero. His long time on the run seemingly did nothing but elevate this anti-hero status.

Filby has blossomed into our SovCit Ned Kelly. Mostly because we appear to really want one of those.

Any news about Filby is an invitation to consider what opposite scenario might actually have played out. Did he kill cops? Well then, he didn’t kill cops and they’re just saying it to target him. Are they telling us he’s dead? Well then, he’s not really dead. Did he die by cop?  Well then, he died another way. While also not having died.

Such is the conspiracist "anti-hero status" Filby enjoys, like Wilson observed.

Filby shot police after they arrived at his home with a search warrant, as part of an investigation into historical child sexual abuse accusations — namely that he, an adult man, had taken his clothes off in the presence of a little girl who was "traumatised" by the experience.

So in short, Filby shot and murdered the police who were trying to investigate whether or not he was a child flasher. Even I, generally abolitioninist in my opinions about police forces, think that’s an excellent example of cops making themselves useful.

I have found general consideration of this fact taking a confounding backseat in the Filby narrative ever since it came out. Either that, or it has been subject to the conspiracist myth-making denialism discussed above:

“Skinny dipping is sexual assault now, is it?” (Sourced from Facebook.)

I have seen Filby described online as a "Martyr of Resistance Against State Tyranny". (Again, sourced from Facebook — where else?)

I continue to dwell on whether the proliferation of deep-dives, exposés and think pieces ominously warning around the "rise of Sovereign Citizen ideology" has helped to fuel this anti-hero culture. Naturally, the SovCit networks that aided and abetted Filby must be scrutinised. But I wonder at how, while the ABC taps Roose for another borrowed warning, the Facebook comments section seems to bloom with more and more layperson defences for the deceased, accused child flasher.

Should we consider whether this culture of mainstream media scrutiny and layperson fascination helps make predators look like martyrs?

It reminds me of former NSN members, such as the recently-bailed Joel Davis. Davis hitched a free ride to near-constant tabloid press coverage, simply by virtue of his vocal membership of the White Supremacist group he was a part of. But in a more sane world, what he’d forever be known for would be his documented staunch advocacy for child marriage. In a more sane world, the press would remember his paedophilia decriminalisation advocacy before deciding to pass him the mic again.

Alas, we live in clown world. And apparently, in clown world, the best way to have everyone forget you might be a child abuser is by also telling them that you’re a SovCit or a Nazi.

But I will never forget Desmond Filby’s child sexual abuse accusations. I don’t think he shot them out of existence. In my unpopular worldview, they are what I think he should be remembered for.

Tom Tanuki is an IA columnist, writer, satirist and anti-fascist activist whose weekly videos commenting on the Australian political fringe appear on YouTube. You can follow him on Twitter/X @tom_tanuki.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/should-the-abc-be-privatised-a-modest-valuation,20890?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 04 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/should-the-abc-be-privatised-a-modest-valuation,20890?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

ABC staff walked off the job last week and the public broadcaster instantly switched to BBC programming. Prof. Vince Hooper discusses whose interests the ABC now serves — citizens or others'.

THERE IS SOMETHING exquisitely self-referential about the ABC reporting on its own strike. It is the media equivalent of a surgeon live-tweeting his own appendectomy — technically impressive, editorially questionable and deeply revealing of an institution that has lost the capacity for embarrassment.

On 22 March 2026, ABC staff walked off the job for 24 hours — the Australian public broadcaster's first strike in two decades. Which tells you either conditions there have either become excruciatingly intolerable, or that it takes 20 years for a publicly funded workforce to muster the existential urgency of the mildly inconvenienced.

ABC managing director Hugh Marks then sat down with Union delegates in a Fair Work Commission mediation and produced a revised pay offer, complete with new provisions for 'progression through pay bandings'. About 60% of staff had voted against the original deal. The unions will now "consult members ahead of a staff vote." The ABC News website duly reported all of this with the same studied neutrality it brings to covering cyclones in far north Queensland — as though it were an act of god rather than an act of payroll.

And when the picket lines went up? The ABC's news channel switched to BBC World News. Radio National defaulted to a BBC World Service simulcast. News Breakfast, 7.30, AM, PM, Late Night Live — all gone, replaced by content from the mother ship in London.

Across the country, the 7pm news bulletin was replaced by a rerun of Australian Story — a profile of Olympic swimmer Michael Klim, for those keeping score — and 7.30, the nation's flagship current affairs programme, gave way to a repeat of Hard Quiz. Three-quarters of Melbourne's usual evening audience simply switched off; nationally, viewership collapsed from 948,000 to 308,000. Triple-J played pre-programmed music without presenters — which several listeners claimed was an improvement.

Let that settle down for a moment. The national broadcaster of a sovereign nation, funded to the tune of over $1 billion dollars a year, reverted to its colonial default settings the moment staff withdrew their labour.

Australians call the ABC "Auntie" — a nickname borrowed, naturally, from the BBC. When the strike hit, Auntie did what aunties do in a crisis: she rang her mother in London and asked her to take over. If privatisation means anything, surely it means not outsourcing your entire broadcast schedule to the BBC every time someone objects to their pay banding.

One is reminded of the old DuPont decomposition: break any enterprise into its constituent parts and you will discover what is really driving the return. For the ABC, the return on taxpayer equity is, shall we say, leveraged. Over a billion dollars a year in public funding produces an asset whose market valuation — were anyone brave or foolish enough to attempt one — would make a venture capitalist weep. And not with joy.

Privatisation enthusiasts will note that the ABC already behaves like a private company in every respect, except the one that matters: it does not have to earn its revenue. It has a board, a managing director, a corporate strategy, enterprise bargaining agreements, industrial disputes and — if the Friday night comedy programming is any guide — a product development pipeline that would concern even the most patient shareholder.

In finance, we call this a "free option". The ABC enjoys all the upside of brand recognition and cultural incumbency, while the Australian taxpayer underwrites the downside. The strike itself was a masterclass in option pricing: staff exercised their right to withdraw labour, knowing that the underlying asset — guaranteed government funding — would not be impaired. Try that at a commercial network and see how long the put option on your employment remains in the money.

The case against privatisation is, oddly, also financial. The ABC is what we might call a public good with negative externalities — or, less charitably, an organisation whose outputs are consumed by people who did not ask for them and paid for by people who did not choose them. This is, of course, the textbook definition of a tax.

But here the satirist must pause and concede a serious point. Regional Australia — the Australia that does not live within Uber Eats range of Ultimo — depends on ABC services in ways that no private operator would replicate. No rational profit-maximiser is going to run a bureau in Longreach.

The market for cyclone warnings in the Torres Strait is, to use the technical term, thin. Privatise the ABC and you do not get a leaner, more efficient broadcaster. You get a metropolitan podcast network with a nostalgia archive and a very expensive real estate portfolio in Parramatta.

The real question, then, is not whether the ABC should be privatised but whether it should be priced. At present, the ABC operates in a valuation vacuum. It has no share price to discipline management, no earnings per share to embarrass the board and no hostile takeover threat to concentrate minds. The closest thing to a market signal is a Senate Estimates hearing, which is to corporate governance what a town hall meeting is to urban planning — loud, theatrical and entirely without consequence.

What if we applied a simple discounted cash flow (DCF)? The ABC receives approximately $1 billion annually. Discount that at the ten-year Commonwealth bond rate — currently nudging 5%, thanks to the Iran war — and you get a perpetuity value of around $20 billion. That makes the ABC worth roughly a third of Woodside Energy, which at least produces something that people are willing to pay for voluntarily.

Be generous, knock the discount rate down to 4% and the ABC is still barely half a Woodside. Of course, a DCF assumes the cash flows are earned, which introduces a category error so profound it would make any accounting professor reach for the sherry.

Here is the deeper irony. The ABC's industrial dispute is itself the strongest argument against privatisation — not because the dispute is unjust, but because it reveals what the ABC has quietly become: a sheltered workshop for the professional class.

Consider the demographics. The median ABC employee is tertiary-educated, inner-metropolitan, and culturally progressive — which is to say, indistinguishable from the median ABC viewer, which is to say, the ABC has achieved the remarkable feat of building an enterprise whose producers and consumers are the same people. In any other industry we would call this a closed loop. In public broadcasting, we call it "reflecting the national conversation."

Privatise it and you do not liberate the market. You merely transfer the subsidy from the Commonwealth budget to the advertising market, where it will be laundered through programmatic ad-tech and emerge, blinking, as content indistinguishable from what Channel Nine already produces.

The ABC does not need privatisation. It needs what every over-leveraged, under-governed, strategically confused institution needs: a margin call. Not on its funding, but on its purpose. When an organisation can report on its own strike without irony, broadcast its own industrial grievances as news and present pay banding negotiations as a matter of public interest with a straight face, the problem is not ownership structure. The problem is that nobody in the building can hear the market laughing.

In the meantime, the unions will consult their members. The members will vote. The pay bandings will be adjusted. The billion dollars will flow. And, somewhere in Adelaide, a viewer who tuned in for 7.30 and got Hard Quiz instead will sit quietly with the distinct sensation that the ABC has, at last, answered its own question.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]>

ABC staff walked off the job last week and the public broadcaster instantly switched to BBC programming. Prof. Vince Hooper discusses whose interests the ABC now serves — citizens or others'.

THERE IS SOMETHING exquisitely self-referential about the ABC reporting on its own strike. It is the media equivalent of a surgeon live-tweeting his own appendectomy — technically impressive, editorially questionable and deeply revealing of an institution that has lost the capacity for embarrassment.

On 22 March 2026, ABC staff walked off the job for 24 hours — the Australian public broadcaster's first strike in two decades. Which tells you either conditions there have either become excruciatingly intolerable, or that it takes 20 years for a publicly funded workforce to muster the existential urgency of the mildly inconvenienced.

ABC managing director Hugh Marks then sat down with Union delegates in a Fair Work Commission mediation and produced a revised pay offer, complete with new provisions for 'progression through pay bandings'. About 60% of staff had voted against the original deal. The unions will now "consult members ahead of a staff vote." The ABC News website duly reported all of this with the same studied neutrality it brings to covering cyclones in far north Queensland — as though it were an act of god rather than an act of payroll.

And when the picket lines went up? The ABC's news channel switched to BBC World News. Radio National defaulted to a BBC World Service simulcast. News Breakfast, 7.30, AM, PM, Late Night Live — all gone, replaced by content from the mother ship in London.

Across the country, the 7pm news bulletin was replaced by a rerun of Australian Story — a profile of Olympic swimmer Michael Klim, for those keeping score — and 7.30, the nation's flagship current affairs programme, gave way to a repeat of Hard Quiz. Three-quarters of Melbourne's usual evening audience simply switched off; nationally, viewership collapsed from 948,000 to 308,000. Triple-J played pre-programmed music without presenters — which several listeners claimed was an improvement.

Let that settle down for a moment. The national broadcaster of a sovereign nation, funded to the tune of over $1 billion dollars a year, reverted to its colonial default settings the moment staff withdrew their labour.

Australians call the ABC "Auntie" — a nickname borrowed, naturally, from the BBC. When the strike hit, Auntie did what aunties do in a crisis: she rang her mother in London and asked her to take over. If privatisation means anything, surely it means not outsourcing your entire broadcast schedule to the BBC every time someone objects to their pay banding.

One is reminded of the old DuPont decomposition: break any enterprise into its constituent parts and you will discover what is really driving the return. For the ABC, the return on taxpayer equity is, shall we say, leveraged. Over a billion dollars a year in public funding produces an asset whose market valuation — were anyone brave or foolish enough to attempt one — would make a venture capitalist weep. And not with joy.

Privatisation enthusiasts will note that the ABC already behaves like a private company in every respect, except the one that matters: it does not have to earn its revenue. It has a board, a managing director, a corporate strategy, enterprise bargaining agreements, industrial disputes and — if the Friday night comedy programming is any guide — a product development pipeline that would concern even the most patient shareholder.

In finance, we call this a "free option". The ABC enjoys all the upside of brand recognition and cultural incumbency, while the Australian taxpayer underwrites the downside. The strike itself was a masterclass in option pricing: staff exercised their right to withdraw labour, knowing that the underlying asset — guaranteed government funding — would not be impaired. Try that at a commercial network and see how long the put option on your employment remains in the money.

The case against privatisation is, oddly, also financial. The ABC is what we might call a public good with negative externalities — or, less charitably, an organisation whose outputs are consumed by people who did not ask for them and paid for by people who did not choose them. This is, of course, the textbook definition of a tax.

But here the satirist must pause and concede a serious point. Regional Australia — the Australia that does not live within Uber Eats range of Ultimo — depends on ABC services in ways that no private operator would replicate. No rational profit-maximiser is going to run a bureau in Longreach.

The market for cyclone warnings in the Torres Strait is, to use the technical term, thin. Privatise the ABC and you do not get a leaner, more efficient broadcaster. You get a metropolitan podcast network with a nostalgia archive and a very expensive real estate portfolio in Parramatta.

The real question, then, is not whether the ABC should be privatised but whether it should be priced. At present, the ABC operates in a valuation vacuum. It has no share price to discipline management, no earnings per share to embarrass the board and no hostile takeover threat to concentrate minds. The closest thing to a market signal is a Senate Estimates hearing, which is to corporate governance what a town hall meeting is to urban planning — loud, theatrical and entirely without consequence.

What if we applied a simple discounted cash flow (DCF)? The ABC receives approximately $1 billion annually. Discount that at the ten-year Commonwealth bond rate — currently nudging 5%, thanks to the Iran war — and you get a perpetuity value of around $20 billion. That makes the ABC worth roughly a third of Woodside Energy, which at least produces something that people are willing to pay for voluntarily.

Be generous, knock the discount rate down to 4% and the ABC is still barely half a Woodside. Of course, a DCF assumes the cash flows are earned, which introduces a category error so profound it would make any accounting professor reach for the sherry.

Here is the deeper irony. The ABC's industrial dispute is itself the strongest argument against privatisation — not because the dispute is unjust, but because it reveals what the ABC has quietly become: a sheltered workshop for the professional class.

Consider the demographics. The median ABC employee is tertiary-educated, inner-metropolitan, and culturally progressive — which is to say, indistinguishable from the median ABC viewer, which is to say, the ABC has achieved the remarkable feat of building an enterprise whose producers and consumers are the same people. In any other industry we would call this a closed loop. In public broadcasting, we call it "reflecting the national conversation."

Privatise it and you do not liberate the market. You merely transfer the subsidy from the Commonwealth budget to the advertising market, where it will be laundered through programmatic ad-tech and emerge, blinking, as content indistinguishable from what Channel Nine already produces.

The ABC does not need privatisation. It needs what every over-leveraged, under-governed, strategically confused institution needs: a margin call. Not on its funding, but on its purpose. When an organisation can report on its own strike without irony, broadcast its own industrial grievances as news and present pay banding negotiations as a matter of public interest with a straight face, the problem is not ownership structure. The problem is that nobody in the building can hear the market laughing.

In the meantime, the unions will consult their members. The members will vote. The pay bandings will be adjusted. The billion dollars will flow. And, somewhere in Adelaide, a viewer who tuned in for 7.30 and got Hard Quiz instead will sit quietly with the distinct sensation that the ABC has, at last, answered its own question.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/greenwashing-how-companies-pretend-to-be-eco-friendly,20893?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 04 Apr 2026 05:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/greenwashing-how-companies-pretend-to-be-eco-friendly,20893?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

You’ve probably seen it before: a huge company decides to go “green”.

Their packaging suddenly depicts leaves or trees, and their advertisements claim that they’re “saving the planet”. Their website has a whole section dedicated to sustainability. It sounds great in theory, but the evidence isn’t there when you go looking for it.

This is what’s called greenwashing.

What’s greenwashing?

Greenwashing is essentially when a company claims to be environmentally friendly but does little to nothing to back that claim up. It’s more about marketing and sales than actual action and environmental protection or awareness. It’s when a company tries to clean up its image rather than fixing the problem.

This is a huge issue in Australia. In fact, it’s one of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) biggest concerns. But why is it such a problem in Australia? The reason is simple: more Australians than ever are trying to shop sustainably.

When companies fake or overrepresent their green credentials, they're not only tricking shoppers, but also making it harder to tell which businesses are actually doing the right thing.

Why do companies do it?

The answer, as usual, is pretty simple — it’s all about generating sales and manufacturing a good perception in the public eye.

More and more people are concerned about sustainability. Australia in particular has seen a huge surge of people wanting to do their part for the planet, or at the very least, reduce their carbon footprint.

People want to recycle and they want companies to do the same. Companies know that people care about the environment, so they’ll do anything to appeal to those values. It’s much easier to appeal to those values than to make actual changes in their supply chain.

Common ways companies practice greenwashing

Once you know the signs of greenwashing, you can start spotting them more easily. Here are some common ways companies practice greenwashing:

Vague marketing language

It’s easy to say that a product is “eco-friendly”, “natural”, and “green”. But does that actually mean anything or is it just an empty marketing term? If you don’t know how it’s “eco-friendly”, then it’s possibly just marketing.

Irrelevant claims

A product claims to be "CFC-free" — but does that actually mean anything? CFCs have been banned in Australia for decades. It's not exactly a bold commitment. This is a common tactic: highlight one positive attribute while ignoring the bigger picture. Recyclable packaging, for instance, doesn't offset high carbon emissions.

No proof

If a company makes big promises but offers no proof, no data, no certifications, or no reports, then it might be a red flag.

Why it matters — especially in Australia

Australia is on the front lines of environmental change. From increasingly severe bushfires to the declining health of the Great Barrier Reef, sustainability isn't a trend here: it's a reality we're having to live with.

Greenwashing is slowing us down, creating a false sense of progress while we’re actually going backwards. It also makes it more difficult for genuinely green businesses to shine.

To the average citizen, it’s a form of deception, making us think we’re making a positive choice while actually being duped.

How to spot the real deal

You don't have to be a scientist or a researcher to spot the real deal:

• Check for certifications like Australian Certified Organic or the Energy Rating logo.
• Check to see if the company publishes detailed, audited reports about its sustainability efforts.
• Be wary of marketing buzzwords without any real information to back them up.
• Do a quick search to see if the business has a history of criticism or investigation.

When researching a company's environmental track record, consider doing so privately. Finding the best VPN for Australia can help you browse without your searches influencing the ads and targeting you late.

Are things getting better?

Despite understandable scepticism, things are slowly getting better. Australian authorities are finally cracking down on greenwashing. The ACCC is getting serious about enforcing environmental laws. New guidelines are out, requiring companies to be more transparent.

Some companies are actually doing the right thing, reducing waste, using clean energy and being honest about progress, even if it’s imperfect. But there’s a long way to go.

What you can do as a consumer

You have more power than you think. Ask questions, choose carefully and vote with your money. If enough people demand real sustainability, companies will respond. You don’t have to be perfect: small steps, like checking labels or supporting transparent brands, still help.

The bottom line

Greenwashing is successful because it sounds so believable. It plays on your good intentions and makes you think that things are improving. But making a difference for the environment takes effort, investment and accountability.

The next time you see a product that boasts about being "green", look closer. Take a little time to dig a bit deeper and support brands that are genuinely trying to make a difference.

]]>

You’ve probably seen it before: a huge company decides to go “green”.

Their packaging suddenly depicts leaves or trees, and their advertisements claim that they’re “saving the planet”. Their website has a whole section dedicated to sustainability. It sounds great in theory, but the evidence isn’t there when you go looking for it.

This is what’s called greenwashing.

What’s greenwashing?

Greenwashing is essentially when a company claims to be environmentally friendly but does little to nothing to back that claim up. It’s more about marketing and sales than actual action and environmental protection or awareness. It’s when a company tries to clean up its image rather than fixing the problem.

This is a huge issue in Australia. In fact, it’s one of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) biggest concerns. But why is it such a problem in Australia? The reason is simple: more Australians than ever are trying to shop sustainably.

When companies fake or overrepresent their green credentials, they're not only tricking shoppers, but also making it harder to tell which businesses are actually doing the right thing.

Why do companies do it?

The answer, as usual, is pretty simple — it’s all about generating sales and manufacturing a good perception in the public eye.

More and more people are concerned about sustainability. Australia in particular has seen a huge surge of people wanting to do their part for the planet, or at the very least, reduce their carbon footprint.

People want to recycle and they want companies to do the same. Companies know that people care about the environment, so they’ll do anything to appeal to those values. It’s much easier to appeal to those values than to make actual changes in their supply chain.

Common ways companies practice greenwashing

Once you know the signs of greenwashing, you can start spotting them more easily. Here are some common ways companies practice greenwashing:

Vague marketing language

It’s easy to say that a product is “eco-friendly”, “natural”, and “green”. But does that actually mean anything or is it just an empty marketing term? If you don’t know how it’s “eco-friendly”, then it’s possibly just marketing.

Irrelevant claims

A product claims to be "CFC-free" — but does that actually mean anything? CFCs have been banned in Australia for decades. It's not exactly a bold commitment. This is a common tactic: highlight one positive attribute while ignoring the bigger picture. Recyclable packaging, for instance, doesn't offset high carbon emissions.

No proof

If a company makes big promises but offers no proof, no data, no certifications, or no reports, then it might be a red flag.

Why it matters — especially in Australia

Australia is on the front lines of environmental change. From increasingly severe bushfires to the declining health of the Great Barrier Reef, sustainability isn't a trend here: it's a reality we're having to live with.

Greenwashing is slowing us down, creating a false sense of progress while we’re actually going backwards. It also makes it more difficult for genuinely green businesses to shine.

To the average citizen, it’s a form of deception, making us think we’re making a positive choice while actually being duped.

How to spot the real deal

You don't have to be a scientist or a researcher to spot the real deal:

• Check for certifications like Australian Certified Organic or the Energy Rating logo.
• Check to see if the company publishes detailed, audited reports about its sustainability efforts.
• Be wary of marketing buzzwords without any real information to back them up.
• Do a quick search to see if the business has a history of criticism or investigation.

When researching a company's environmental track record, consider doing so privately. Finding the best VPN for Australia can help you browse without your searches influencing the ads and targeting you late.

Are things getting better?

Despite understandable scepticism, things are slowly getting better. Australian authorities are finally cracking down on greenwashing. The ACCC is getting serious about enforcing environmental laws. New guidelines are out, requiring companies to be more transparent.

Some companies are actually doing the right thing, reducing waste, using clean energy and being honest about progress, even if it’s imperfect. But there’s a long way to go.

What you can do as a consumer

You have more power than you think. Ask questions, choose carefully and vote with your money. If enough people demand real sustainability, companies will respond. You don’t have to be perfect: small steps, like checking labels or supporting transparent brands, still help.

The bottom line

Greenwashing is successful because it sounds so believable. It plays on your good intentions and makes you think that things are improving. But making a difference for the environment takes effort, investment and accountability.

The next time you see a product that boasts about being "green", look closer. Take a little time to dig a bit deeper and support brands that are genuinely trying to make a difference.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/how-australians-are-taking-their-health-back-into-their-own-hands,20892?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sat, 04 Apr 2026 04:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/how-australians-are-taking-their-health-back-into-their-own-hands,20892?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Something has shifted in the way people think about their own wellbeing.

It is not one big dramatic moment. It is a gradual, quiet change. More people are paying closer attention to how they sleep, what they eat, how they move, and how much they push through when they probably should not.

The old mentality, soldier on, skip the doctor, eat whatever is fastest, is fading. In its place, something more self-aware is taking over.

Australians, in particular, are rethinking what it actually means to look after themselves. Not just in the big, obvious ways. But in the small daily decisions that add up over time.

This is what that shift looks like in practice.

The problem with pushing through

Most people know the feeling.

You wake up unwell. Not dramatically, not hospitalised-level sick, but genuinely not right. Head heavy, body aching, concentration completely gone.

And the first thought is not "I should rest." It is "Can I get away with going in anyway?"

That instinct to push through is deeply ingrained. It comes from workplace cultures that quietly reward presence over performance, from financial pressure, from not wanting to let people down.

But pushing through when your body is asking for rest is a short-term fix with long-term costs. A mild illness becomes a week-long one. A manageable fatigue becomes something that takes months to shake properly.

The science on this is not complicated. Rest is when the body repairs itself. Interrupt that process repeatedly and the repairs start to pile up like a maintenance backlog that never quite gets cleared.

Taking sick leave seriously is not a weakness. It is basic physiology.

The paperwork problem nobody talks about

Here is where things get frustrating for a lot of people.

Taking a sick day should be simple. But in many workplaces, anything more than a day or two requires a medical certificate. Which means calling a clinic, waiting for an appointment, sitting in a waiting room feeling genuinely terrible and then waiting again to be seen for five minutes just to be told what you already know: you need to rest.

It is a process that discourages people from taking the leave they genuinely need.

Fortunately, that process has become a lot more straightforward. Getting a work medical certificate online through a telehealth service means a short consultation from home, no waiting rooms, no unnecessary travel when you are already unwell and a legitimate certificate issued by a registered practitioner.

It is the kind of practical solution that removes a genuine barrier. When the paperwork is no longer an obstacle, people are more likely to actually take the rest they need rather than gutting it out unnecessarily.

Rest is only part of the recovery equation

Taking time off is the starting point. What you do with that time matters just as much.

Real recovery involves more than lying still and waiting to feel better. The body needs the right inputs to actually repair. Sleep is non-negotiable. Hydration matters more than most people give it credit for. And nutrition, often the most overlooked piece, plays a significant role in how quickly and completely the body bounces back.

This is not just relevant when you are sick, either. It applies to everyday energy, resilience and the ability to handle the demands of a full working life without running on empty.

More people are waking up to the fact that what they eat directly shapes how they function. Not in a faddy, restrictive way. Just in the basic sense that the body needs enough of the right things to operate properly.

The nutrition gap most people are not filling

Here is a question worth sitting with honestly.

On a typical weekday, are you actually eating enough? Enough protein, enough variety, enough of anything that is not grabbed in a hurry between meetings?

For most people, the honest answer is no.

Busy schedules, skipped meals, convenience foods that fill the gap without really nourishing. It adds up. Energy dips. Focus gets patchy. Recovery from illness or physical effort takes longer than it should.

Protein is one of the most commonly underheated nutrients, particularly for people with active lives or demanding jobs. It is foundational for muscle maintenance, immune function and sustained energy across the day.

Getting enough through food alone is possible but not always practical. A quality protein powder can bridge the gap cleanly, without overcomplicating a routine that is already stretched thin. A scoop in a smoothie, stirred into oats, or mixed with water post-exercise covers the basics without demanding much time or effort.

It is not about transformation or athletic ambition for most people. It is just about giving the body what it needs to keep up with a full life.

Building habits that actually stick

The bigger picture here is about sustainability.

One good decision does not change much. A pattern of good decisions, made consistently over time, changes everything.

The people who genuinely thrive long-term are not the ones with the most extreme health regimens. They are the ones who have worked out a handful of simple habits that fit their actual life and stuck to them without making it a whole personality.

What does that look like in practice?

It looks like taking sick leave when the body clearly needs it, rather than treating rest as something to feel guilty about. It looks like eating with enough intention to cover nutritional basics even on chaotic days. It looks like getting outside regularly, moving in ways that feel good rather than punishing and sleeping enough to actually function.

None of this is revolutionary. But the gap between knowing these things and actually doing them consistently is where most people fall short.

The role of information in making better choices

Part of what makes it easier to build these habits is having access to reliable, straightforward information.

Not the kind that is overwhelmed with contradictory advice. Not the kind that requires a nutrition degree to decode. Just clear, honest, practical information about how the body works and what it actually needs.

This is somewhere independent journalism genuinely matters. Platforms that cover health, work, and everyday life without a corporate agenda to push tend to cut through the noise better than most. 

Whether it is understanding your rights around sick leave, making sense of nutrition claims, or just keeping up with changes that affect how Australians live and work, good independent coverage makes a real difference.

What looking after yourself actually requires

It is worth being honest about something.

Looking after your health properly does require some effort. Not heroic effort. Not a complete overhaul of your life. But a genuine, ongoing commitment to treating your own wellbeing as something that deserves attention rather than whatever is left over at the end of the day.

That means not ignoring symptoms because the timing is inconvenient. It means not skipping meals because you got busy. It means not running yourself into the ground and then wondering why you feel so depleted.

Small things: Consistently done

The good news is that the friction around a lot of this has genuinely reduced. Seeing a doctor when you need one no longer requires half a day off work. Getting the nutritional basics covered no longer requires hours of meal prep. Staying informed no longer requires wading through content that is more interested in selling than telling.

The tools are better than they have ever been. The question is whether people are actually using them.

A different kind of health culture

What is emerging, gradually and unevenly, is a health culture that is more honest and more practical than the one it is replacing.

Less about looking a certain way, performing a certain routine, or subscribing to whatever wellness trend is currently dominating social media feeds.

More about functioning well. Feeling capable. Having enough energy to actually enjoy the life you are working so hard to maintain.

That is a shift worth encouraging.

The decisions that make the biggest difference are rarely dramatic. They are the quiet, undramatic choices made on ordinary days: resting when the body asks for it, eating in a way that genuinely supports the demands being placed on it, staying informed enough to advocate for yourself when it matters.

That is what looking after yourself actually looks like. Not a programme, not a protocol. Just paying attention, and acting on what you notice.

]]>

Something has shifted in the way people think about their own wellbeing.

It is not one big dramatic moment. It is a gradual, quiet change. More people are paying closer attention to how they sleep, what they eat, how they move, and how much they push through when they probably should not.

The old mentality, soldier on, skip the doctor, eat whatever is fastest, is fading. In its place, something more self-aware is taking over.

Australians, in particular, are rethinking what it actually means to look after themselves. Not just in the big, obvious ways. But in the small daily decisions that add up over time.

This is what that shift looks like in practice.

The problem with pushing through

Most people know the feeling.

You wake up unwell. Not dramatically, not hospitalised-level sick, but genuinely not right. Head heavy, body aching, concentration completely gone.

And the first thought is not "I should rest." It is "Can I get away with going in anyway?"

That instinct to push through is deeply ingrained. It comes from workplace cultures that quietly reward presence over performance, from financial pressure, from not wanting to let people down.

But pushing through when your body is asking for rest is a short-term fix with long-term costs. A mild illness becomes a week-long one. A manageable fatigue becomes something that takes months to shake properly.

The science on this is not complicated. Rest is when the body repairs itself. Interrupt that process repeatedly and the repairs start to pile up like a maintenance backlog that never quite gets cleared.

Taking sick leave seriously is not a weakness. It is basic physiology.

The paperwork problem nobody talks about

Here is where things get frustrating for a lot of people.

Taking a sick day should be simple. But in many workplaces, anything more than a day or two requires a medical certificate. Which means calling a clinic, waiting for an appointment, sitting in a waiting room feeling genuinely terrible and then waiting again to be seen for five minutes just to be told what you already know: you need to rest.

It is a process that discourages people from taking the leave they genuinely need.

Fortunately, that process has become a lot more straightforward. Getting a work medical certificate online through a telehealth service means a short consultation from home, no waiting rooms, no unnecessary travel when you are already unwell and a legitimate certificate issued by a registered practitioner.

It is the kind of practical solution that removes a genuine barrier. When the paperwork is no longer an obstacle, people are more likely to actually take the rest they need rather than gutting it out unnecessarily.

Rest is only part of the recovery equation

Taking time off is the starting point. What you do with that time matters just as much.

Real recovery involves more than lying still and waiting to feel better. The body needs the right inputs to actually repair. Sleep is non-negotiable. Hydration matters more than most people give it credit for. And nutrition, often the most overlooked piece, plays a significant role in how quickly and completely the body bounces back.

This is not just relevant when you are sick, either. It applies to everyday energy, resilience and the ability to handle the demands of a full working life without running on empty.

More people are waking up to the fact that what they eat directly shapes how they function. Not in a faddy, restrictive way. Just in the basic sense that the body needs enough of the right things to operate properly.

The nutrition gap most people are not filling

Here is a question worth sitting with honestly.

On a typical weekday, are you actually eating enough? Enough protein, enough variety, enough of anything that is not grabbed in a hurry between meetings?

For most people, the honest answer is no.

Busy schedules, skipped meals, convenience foods that fill the gap without really nourishing. It adds up. Energy dips. Focus gets patchy. Recovery from illness or physical effort takes longer than it should.

Protein is one of the most commonly underheated nutrients, particularly for people with active lives or demanding jobs. It is foundational for muscle maintenance, immune function and sustained energy across the day.

Getting enough through food alone is possible but not always practical. A quality protein powder can bridge the gap cleanly, without overcomplicating a routine that is already stretched thin. A scoop in a smoothie, stirred into oats, or mixed with water post-exercise covers the basics without demanding much time or effort.

It is not about transformation or athletic ambition for most people. It is just about giving the body what it needs to keep up with a full life.

Building habits that actually stick

The bigger picture here is about sustainability.

One good decision does not change much. A pattern of good decisions, made consistently over time, changes everything.

The people who genuinely thrive long-term are not the ones with the most extreme health regimens. They are the ones who have worked out a handful of simple habits that fit their actual life and stuck to them without making it a whole personality.

What does that look like in practice?

It looks like taking sick leave when the body clearly needs it, rather than treating rest as something to feel guilty about. It looks like eating with enough intention to cover nutritional basics even on chaotic days. It looks like getting outside regularly, moving in ways that feel good rather than punishing and sleeping enough to actually function.

None of this is revolutionary. But the gap between knowing these things and actually doing them consistently is where most people fall short.

The role of information in making better choices

Part of what makes it easier to build these habits is having access to reliable, straightforward information.

Not the kind that is overwhelmed with contradictory advice. Not the kind that requires a nutrition degree to decode. Just clear, honest, practical information about how the body works and what it actually needs.

This is somewhere independent journalism genuinely matters. Platforms that cover health, work, and everyday life without a corporate agenda to push tend to cut through the noise better than most. 

Whether it is understanding your rights around sick leave, making sense of nutrition claims, or just keeping up with changes that affect how Australians live and work, good independent coverage makes a real difference.

What looking after yourself actually requires

It is worth being honest about something.

Looking after your health properly does require some effort. Not heroic effort. Not a complete overhaul of your life. But a genuine, ongoing commitment to treating your own wellbeing as something that deserves attention rather than whatever is left over at the end of the day.

That means not ignoring symptoms because the timing is inconvenient. It means not skipping meals because you got busy. It means not running yourself into the ground and then wondering why you feel so depleted.

Small things: Consistently done

The good news is that the friction around a lot of this has genuinely reduced. Seeing a doctor when you need one no longer requires half a day off work. Getting the nutritional basics covered no longer requires hours of meal prep. Staying informed no longer requires wading through content that is more interested in selling than telling.

The tools are better than they have ever been. The question is whether people are actually using them.

A different kind of health culture

What is emerging, gradually and unevenly, is a health culture that is more honest and more practical than the one it is replacing.

Less about looking a certain way, performing a certain routine, or subscribing to whatever wellness trend is currently dominating social media feeds.

More about functioning well. Feeling capable. Having enough energy to actually enjoy the life you are working so hard to maintain.

That is a shift worth encouraging.

The decisions that make the biggest difference are rarely dramatic. They are the quiet, undramatic choices made on ordinary days: resting when the body asks for it, eating in a way that genuinely supports the demands being placed on it, staying informed enough to advocate for yourself when it matters.

That is what looking after yourself actually looks like. Not a programme, not a protocol. Just paying attention, and acting on what you notice.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australian-wildlife-cruelty-is-out-of-control,20888?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Fri, 03 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australian-wildlife-cruelty-is-out-of-control,20888?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Horrific, sadistic wildlife cruelty is out of control in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.

* CONTENT WARNING: This article discusses animal cruelty

With the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTA) now replaced by many states, governments are failing to urgently act on the growing extent of cruelty and trauma to which Australian wildlife is being subjected.

The situation is serious, largely unreported by mainstream media, with wildlife suffering appalling treatment, torture and dreadful pain. Animals are sentient beings; they feel pain just like humans, except there’s no relief because our political parties are lacking in any compassion. Instead, using our wildlife as photo props for propaganda.

In the South West Victorian town of Koroit, a koala was allegedly tied with a rope around its neck to the back of a ute and dragged through the town, resulting in appalling injuries, leaving a trail of blood for 100 metres, then dumped in a nearby park.

According to a report in the Warrnambool Standard:

The witness, who asked not to be named, said she was driving home from work at South West Healthcare about 5.15 pm on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, when she saw a ute driving towards her on Koroit’s King Street:

"It was just my normal route that I usually go along, there was this ute that, from front view, was not suspicious whatsoever. But as I did get a bit closer, this ute did start to drive off and then just as I got side-by-side to the car, I saw the koala on the road getting dragged [by a rope]."

The witness said she turned her car around and tried to follow to get details of the vehicle, but it drove away before she could.

She said the injured animal was dumped at Victoria Park.

The witness said once she arrived at where the koala was left, it was obvious how badly hurt it was:

If you’re looking at the koala on his right side, very injured, gravel grazed… the koala’s left side face was grazed, like to the bone, to the muscle, pretty much.

 

It was sitting up and sort of rocking back and forth obviously trying to get comfortable through all the pain that that poor thing had endured. I think there was a lot more damage than what you could visibly see.

The woman said she, with the help of another witness, called services to help the animal. She said she sat a few metres away, talking to the animal to keep it calm until animal rescuers arrived.

The koala, in dreadful pain, was picked up by the rescuer, who faced another dilemma as the local vet practice didn’t have a vet on call. It was fortunate that a volunteer vet at the Mosswood Wildlife Sanctuary was available and euthanised the suffering koala. The injuries were dreadful; there was no possibility of the wounded koala surviving.

If no rescuer or vet had been available, the fate of the koala is not worth thinking about. With no wildlife hospital in the habitat of the state’s largest koala population, getting veterinary treatment is difficult.

Under the current Victorian government’s inadequate anti-cruelty legislation, any prosecution of this sadistic, brutal cruelty will be undertaken by the Conservation Regulator, which is part of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA). A department that is the focus of extreme criticism by many conservation groups, shelters and local communities over its non-action on wildlife issues.

According to the Conservation Regulator Facebook page, an arrest has been made, but the alleged perpetrator has been released:

An arrest has been made following allegations a koala was dragged by a vehicle along roadway in Victoria’s southwest. The incident allegedly took place at Koroit on Wednesday, before the koala was found with serious injuries at Victoria Park. Due to the extent of its injuries, the koala was euthanised.

 

A man was arrested by Victoria Police yesterday and interviewed by the Conservation Regulator in relation to wildlife cruelty offences. The 67-year-old been released and is expected to be charged on summons.

Why wasn’t he gaoled? What further sadistic torture can he inflict on animals whilst the legal system drags on? Ask yourself the essential question.

If a human being with a rope around his neck tied to the back of a ute and dragged up a street, would the perpetrator be released? If the human died of injuries sustained, would the perpetrator be charged with murder?

What’s the difference?

With no wildlife hospital in the region, the plight of injured wildlife can only be described as desperate.

In 2023, the Allan Labor Government promised to build a $4.7 million wildlife hospital in the region to be operated by Zoos Victoria. The hospital has not progressed. 

 

Liberal MP Roma Britnell, member for the south-west coast, raised the issue in Parliament in November 2025, saying:

"I’m angry. Two years later there is no timeline, no consultation and no visible progress. When I pressed the Minister, the response was staggering. They claimed there is no suitable land in South-West Coast. Our region has abundant public and private land."

In 2019, RSPCA Victoria signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Andrews Government, which denied the agency enforcement of wildlife issues, instead giving the conservation regulator the power to prosecute.

A draft animal care and protection bill was quietly shelved by the Victorian Government in March this year. The bill was designed to eradicate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Available evidence of government cruelty points to the fact that both the Andrews and Allan Labor governments are dead set determined to ensure minimum protection for Victorian animals remains in place.

Given the Victorian Labor Government has worked tirelessly to weaken any protection of wildlife and to eradicate the powers of RSPCA Victoria, the public is entitled to ask why sentient animals are now being treated as "things in the way" with significantly limited focus on cruelty, which has been handed over to bureaucrats.

In March, the deliberate killing of seven kangaroos in Victoria’s Flinders raised deep concern.

Wildlife rescuer Virginia Carter said the injuries were consistent with being hit by vehicles and possibly being shot:

"All were severely injured. Five had broken legs, two had head injuries. A dead joey was lying beside its mother with a torn pouch."

A similar incident happened in the same area in December last year.

Once again, the appalling incident was not reported to RSPCA Victoria as the MOU denies any enforcement of wildlife issues. Instead, DEECA, Victoria Police and Parks Victoria were given the information. No updates have been made available.

The POCTA is dead in the water in many states. Queensland passed an Animal Care & Protection Act in 2001. South Australia has an Animal Welfare Act, with RSPCA the primary organisation for investigating animal cruelty. WA replaced the POCTA with the Animal Welfare Act in 2002. RSPCA inspectors are authorised to handle prosecutions.

It's important to note that these legislative changes have eradicated "the prevention of cruelty", replacing it with "animal welfare", which are two different issues.

In NSW, a terrible incident occurred at Wyee Point, with seven kangaroos found dead in multiple locations, suggesting a deliberate hit and run. The sole survivor, a joey, died in care.

The local mob of kangaroos had been loved by locals who are still traumatised and deeply concerned.

In South Australia, the State Government has been paying bounties between $5 and $7 for each kangaroo shot, with a minimum of 100. Since 2025, more than 80,000 kangaroos have been shot.

The purpose? 'To reduce grazing pressure'.

Australia will soon be known as the cruel country. But efforts to keep the exponentially increasing acts of cruelty, particularly against koalas and kangaroos, from mainstream and international media are significant.

Bottom line — the suffering of Australia’s defenceless wildlife is a crime against nature. Those who allow and weaken protection are equally responsible for the hideous acts which should shame any nation.

If this article has raised any issues for you, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or
1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or online at 1800RESPECT.org.au.

Sue Arnold is an IA columnist and freelance investigative journalist. You can follow Sue on Twitter @koalacrisis.

 

]]>

Horrific, sadistic wildlife cruelty is out of control in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.

* CONTENT WARNING: This article discusses animal cruelty

With the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTA) now replaced by many states, governments are failing to urgently act on the growing extent of cruelty and trauma to which Australian wildlife is being subjected.

The situation is serious, largely unreported by mainstream media, with wildlife suffering appalling treatment, torture and dreadful pain. Animals are sentient beings; they feel pain just like humans, except there’s no relief because our political parties are lacking in any compassion. Instead, using our wildlife as photo props for propaganda.

In the South West Victorian town of Koroit, a koala was allegedly tied with a rope around its neck to the back of a ute and dragged through the town, resulting in appalling injuries, leaving a trail of blood for 100 metres, then dumped in a nearby park.

According to a report in the Warrnambool Standard:

The witness, who asked not to be named, said she was driving home from work at South West Healthcare about 5.15 pm on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, when she saw a ute driving towards her on Koroit’s King Street:

"It was just my normal route that I usually go along, there was this ute that, from front view, was not suspicious whatsoever. But as I did get a bit closer, this ute did start to drive off and then just as I got side-by-side to the car, I saw the koala on the road getting dragged [by a rope]."

The witness said she turned her car around and tried to follow to get details of the vehicle, but it drove away before she could.

She said the injured animal was dumped at Victoria Park.

The witness said once she arrived at where the koala was left, it was obvious how badly hurt it was:

If you’re looking at the koala on his right side, very injured, gravel grazed… the koala’s left side face was grazed, like to the bone, to the muscle, pretty much.

 

It was sitting up and sort of rocking back and forth obviously trying to get comfortable through all the pain that that poor thing had endured. I think there was a lot more damage than what you could visibly see.

The woman said she, with the help of another witness, called services to help the animal. She said she sat a few metres away, talking to the animal to keep it calm until animal rescuers arrived.

The koala, in dreadful pain, was picked up by the rescuer, who faced another dilemma as the local vet practice didn’t have a vet on call. It was fortunate that a volunteer vet at the Mosswood Wildlife Sanctuary was available and euthanised the suffering koala. The injuries were dreadful; there was no possibility of the wounded koala surviving.

If no rescuer or vet had been available, the fate of the koala is not worth thinking about. With no wildlife hospital in the habitat of the state’s largest koala population, getting veterinary treatment is difficult.

Under the current Victorian government’s inadequate anti-cruelty legislation, any prosecution of this sadistic, brutal cruelty will be undertaken by the Conservation Regulator, which is part of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA). A department that is the focus of extreme criticism by many conservation groups, shelters and local communities over its non-action on wildlife issues.

According to the Conservation Regulator Facebook page, an arrest has been made, but the alleged perpetrator has been released:

An arrest has been made following allegations a koala was dragged by a vehicle along roadway in Victoria’s southwest. The incident allegedly took place at Koroit on Wednesday, before the koala was found with serious injuries at Victoria Park. Due to the extent of its injuries, the koala was euthanised.

 

A man was arrested by Victoria Police yesterday and interviewed by the Conservation Regulator in relation to wildlife cruelty offences. The 67-year-old been released and is expected to be charged on summons.

Why wasn’t he gaoled? What further sadistic torture can he inflict on animals whilst the legal system drags on? Ask yourself the essential question.

If a human being with a rope around his neck tied to the back of a ute and dragged up a street, would the perpetrator be released? If the human died of injuries sustained, would the perpetrator be charged with murder?

What’s the difference?

With no wildlife hospital in the region, the plight of injured wildlife can only be described as desperate.

In 2023, the Allan Labor Government promised to build a $4.7 million wildlife hospital in the region to be operated by Zoos Victoria. The hospital has not progressed. 

 

Liberal MP Roma Britnell, member for the south-west coast, raised the issue in Parliament in November 2025, saying:

"I’m angry. Two years later there is no timeline, no consultation and no visible progress. When I pressed the Minister, the response was staggering. They claimed there is no suitable land in South-West Coast. Our region has abundant public and private land."

In 2019, RSPCA Victoria signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Andrews Government, which denied the agency enforcement of wildlife issues, instead giving the conservation regulator the power to prosecute.

A draft animal care and protection bill was quietly shelved by the Victorian Government in March this year. The bill was designed to eradicate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Available evidence of government cruelty points to the fact that both the Andrews and Allan Labor governments are dead set determined to ensure minimum protection for Victorian animals remains in place.

Given the Victorian Labor Government has worked tirelessly to weaken any protection of wildlife and to eradicate the powers of RSPCA Victoria, the public is entitled to ask why sentient animals are now being treated as "things in the way" with significantly limited focus on cruelty, which has been handed over to bureaucrats.

In March, the deliberate killing of seven kangaroos in Victoria’s Flinders raised deep concern.

Wildlife rescuer Virginia Carter said the injuries were consistent with being hit by vehicles and possibly being shot:

"All were severely injured. Five had broken legs, two had head injuries. A dead joey was lying beside its mother with a torn pouch."

A similar incident happened in the same area in December last year.

Once again, the appalling incident was not reported to RSPCA Victoria as the MOU denies any enforcement of wildlife issues. Instead, DEECA, Victoria Police and Parks Victoria were given the information. No updates have been made available.

The POCTA is dead in the water in many states. Queensland passed an Animal Care & Protection Act in 2001. South Australia has an Animal Welfare Act, with RSPCA the primary organisation for investigating animal cruelty. WA replaced the POCTA with the Animal Welfare Act in 2002. RSPCA inspectors are authorised to handle prosecutions.

It's important to note that these legislative changes have eradicated "the prevention of cruelty", replacing it with "animal welfare", which are two different issues.

In NSW, a terrible incident occurred at Wyee Point, with seven kangaroos found dead in multiple locations, suggesting a deliberate hit and run. The sole survivor, a joey, died in care.

The local mob of kangaroos had been loved by locals who are still traumatised and deeply concerned.

In South Australia, the State Government has been paying bounties between $5 and $7 for each kangaroo shot, with a minimum of 100. Since 2025, more than 80,000 kangaroos have been shot.

The purpose? 'To reduce grazing pressure'.

Australia will soon be known as the cruel country. But efforts to keep the exponentially increasing acts of cruelty, particularly against koalas and kangaroos, from mainstream and international media are significant.

Bottom line — the suffering of Australia’s defenceless wildlife is a crime against nature. Those who allow and weaken protection are equally responsible for the hideous acts which should shame any nation.

If this article has raised any issues for you, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or
1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or online at 1800RESPECT.org.au.

Sue Arnold is an IA columnist and freelance investigative journalist. You can follow Sue on Twitter @koalacrisis.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/american-war-strategy-and-the-need-for-independence,20887?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/american-war-strategy-and-the-need-for-independence,20887?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

America's increasingly flaky military strategy under successive regimes stresses the importance of Australia going its own way, suggests William Briggs.

IN LATE 2024, in the dying days of the Biden Presidency, a new military doctrine was developed. In the febrile atmosphere that envelops Washington, the then-President and all the President’s men believed that the path to maintaining U.S. global hegemony lay in a scheme that was named the Three-Theatre Defence Strategy.

The idea first saw the light of day in Foreign Affairs magazine. Its author, Thomas Mahnken, is President and CEO of powerful U.S. think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and, at the time, a member of the Commission on the National Defence Strategy and a member of the U.S. Army Science Board.

We need to remember that this was in 2024 and before the coming of Trump.

Mahnken pulled no punches. He argued that the U.S. was currently involved in two wars: in Ukraine and in the Middle East, while preparing for a third in Asia. “Washington is fortunate to have capable allies and friends in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East”, he wrote. However, these allies and friends “must do a better job of working together”. This meant not only acting in alliance with the USA on the battlefield, but also producing weaponry and keeping the American military-industrial complex profitable.

The strategy relies on there being "enemies" ready at hand. American strategists and the propagandists of the Western media easily identify these enemies. The essay that drove the policy claimed that these "enemies" are "cooperating with one another: Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Korea and North Korea sends weapons to Russia”. Mahnken called these countries “an authoritarian axis” that “spans the Eurasian landmass”. The answer, for Mahnken, was for the U.S. to strike back.

Having identified this "axis", the theorist explains how to fight it. This meant leaning on "allies". 

Mahnken reported that Washington’s allies have:

“... the power to help it constrain the authoritarian axis. But to succeed, they must do a better job of working together … The West, in particular, must create and share more munitions, weapons, and military bases.”

When Trump assumed power, this policy was seemingly replaced by a new "America First" National Defence Strategy. This "shift" in thinking demands a focus on "homeland security", which is an effective re-run of the old Monroe Doctrine. There was to be a reduction of U.S. forces abroad and specifically in the Middle East. This now lies in tatters as the U.S. fleet is in the region and thousands of Marines are being deployed.

The new policy is also based on pressuring "allies" to spend more on their military to defend their respective regions, or rather, be prepared to wage predatory wars when required.

There is an underlying idea that underpins the policy. That is to explicitly link economic and military power, and to use that military power to advance U.S. business interests.

Words and semantics sometimes cross-dress. While the strategic approach of waging total global war might appear to have shifted, the goal of maintaining global dominance has not.

The new U.S. National Defense Strategy is not necessarily unravelling but rather merging with that of Biden’s. War is currently being fought on two fronts and China remains in the U.S. gun sights. What has happened, however, is that the insanity of a war on three fronts is proving intensely difficult to sustain.

According to the Biden doctrine, the U.S. and a phalanx of loyal allies would, if "necessary", wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. China was to be confronted and its rise to preeminence was to be halted and reversed. Russia was to be weakened and would become little more than a quarry for U.S. interests. Iran was to be effectively destroyed and global oil would rest in "safe" hands.

This maniacal view of the world certainly looked like coming to its apocalyptic conclusion. Today, the Russian-Ukrainian War goes on. The War and its cost in human lives, resources and money appear endless. The Russian economy is in such a parlous state, inflation is now more than 9 per cent and massive labour shortages cripple life and productivity. But even so, the drain on materiel has revealed a flaw in the U.S. policy of "three fronts".

Iran has exposed another weakness. The hubris of empire assumed Iran would be forced to capitulate quickly. A month into that war, the U.S. is now drawing military resources away from Asia  to fill gaps. The goal of securing oil for U.S. interests is turning into a global nightmare.

China, while dependent on a significant portion of its oil from Iran, has assiduously been transitioning to a more self-reliant and sustainable energy use. Its rise continues, even as its strategic enemy and rival, the USA, continues to weaken.

The war in Iran was one move in a global offensive that was clearly aimed at weakening China. China has, either opportunistically or strategically, chosen to stick to what it describes as a "stay in your lane" approach and is being careful not to identify itself with the war, on any side.

If the USA does not succeed in bringing Iran to heel, then a global recession is inevitable and worldwide economic depression is likely. This would cripple the global economy and the power of the U.S.would further decline.

China, obviously, would suffer massive economic problems, but has the economic, military and political capacity to not simply stay the course, but to emerge even more dominant and with a growing list of ready global partners with whom to do business.

The 19th-Century British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerstone, famously declared:

"... we have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow."

This blunt but honest assessment of realpolitik has dominated state thinking ever since. It certainly drives the thoughts and practices of the USA, and its allies and perceived enemies. It certainly marks out how the struggle for global economic hegemony between the U.S. and China is progressing.

This same approach should find accord with smaller powers. Many of Australia’s near neighbours in the Pacific assert that they want to be a friend to all and an enemy to none. The clarity of such thinking needs to be adopted by Australia.

What is in Australia’s national interest? Surely the answer should be: peace, security and economic progress. Being a perpetual "yes" man to U.S. imperialism and a perpetual partner in American wars cannot serve those national interests.

Greater engagement with the Asian region, peaceful, non-aligned policies that foster good relations and beneficial trade relationships with the dominant economies of the region do serve those interests. While Australia remains a capitalist nation-state, it makes sense to more closely engage with other capitalist states.

China is the most obvious capitalist state to engage with closely. This does not weaken Australia, but permits it to develop an independent foreign and economic policy that allows for peace, stability and economic progress.

Our future, if we are to have a secure future, demands this.

William Briggs is a political economist. His special areas of interest lie in political theory and international political economy. He has been, variously, a teacher, journalist and political activist.

]]>

America's increasingly flaky military strategy under successive regimes stresses the importance of Australia going its own way, suggests William Briggs.

IN LATE 2024, in the dying days of the Biden Presidency, a new military doctrine was developed. In the febrile atmosphere that envelops Washington, the then-President and all the President’s men believed that the path to maintaining U.S. global hegemony lay in a scheme that was named the Three-Theatre Defence Strategy.

The idea first saw the light of day in Foreign Affairs magazine. Its author, Thomas Mahnken, is President and CEO of powerful U.S. think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and, at the time, a member of the Commission on the National Defence Strategy and a member of the U.S. Army Science Board.

We need to remember that this was in 2024 and before the coming of Trump.

Mahnken pulled no punches. He argued that the U.S. was currently involved in two wars: in Ukraine and in the Middle East, while preparing for a third in Asia. “Washington is fortunate to have capable allies and friends in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East”, he wrote. However, these allies and friends “must do a better job of working together”. This meant not only acting in alliance with the USA on the battlefield, but also producing weaponry and keeping the American military-industrial complex profitable.

The strategy relies on there being "enemies" ready at hand. American strategists and the propagandists of the Western media easily identify these enemies. The essay that drove the policy claimed that these "enemies" are "cooperating with one another: Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Korea and North Korea sends weapons to Russia”. Mahnken called these countries “an authoritarian axis” that “spans the Eurasian landmass”. The answer, for Mahnken, was for the U.S. to strike back.

Having identified this "axis", the theorist explains how to fight it. This meant leaning on "allies". 

Mahnken reported that Washington’s allies have:

“... the power to help it constrain the authoritarian axis. But to succeed, they must do a better job of working together … The West, in particular, must create and share more munitions, weapons, and military bases.”

When Trump assumed power, this policy was seemingly replaced by a new "America First" National Defence Strategy. This "shift" in thinking demands a focus on "homeland security", which is an effective re-run of the old Monroe Doctrine. There was to be a reduction of U.S. forces abroad and specifically in the Middle East. This now lies in tatters as the U.S. fleet is in the region and thousands of Marines are being deployed.

The new policy is also based on pressuring "allies" to spend more on their military to defend their respective regions, or rather, be prepared to wage predatory wars when required.

There is an underlying idea that underpins the policy. That is to explicitly link economic and military power, and to use that military power to advance U.S. business interests.

Words and semantics sometimes cross-dress. While the strategic approach of waging total global war might appear to have shifted, the goal of maintaining global dominance has not.

The new U.S. National Defense Strategy is not necessarily unravelling but rather merging with that of Biden’s. War is currently being fought on two fronts and China remains in the U.S. gun sights. What has happened, however, is that the insanity of a war on three fronts is proving intensely difficult to sustain.

According to the Biden doctrine, the U.S. and a phalanx of loyal allies would, if "necessary", wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. China was to be confronted and its rise to preeminence was to be halted and reversed. Russia was to be weakened and would become little more than a quarry for U.S. interests. Iran was to be effectively destroyed and global oil would rest in "safe" hands.

This maniacal view of the world certainly looked like coming to its apocalyptic conclusion. Today, the Russian-Ukrainian War goes on. The War and its cost in human lives, resources and money appear endless. The Russian economy is in such a parlous state, inflation is now more than 9 per cent and massive labour shortages cripple life and productivity. But even so, the drain on materiel has revealed a flaw in the U.S. policy of "three fronts".

Iran has exposed another weakness. The hubris of empire assumed Iran would be forced to capitulate quickly. A month into that war, the U.S. is now drawing military resources away from Asia  to fill gaps. The goal of securing oil for U.S. interests is turning into a global nightmare.

China, while dependent on a significant portion of its oil from Iran, has assiduously been transitioning to a more self-reliant and sustainable energy use. Its rise continues, even as its strategic enemy and rival, the USA, continues to weaken.

The war in Iran was one move in a global offensive that was clearly aimed at weakening China. China has, either opportunistically or strategically, chosen to stick to what it describes as a "stay in your lane" approach and is being careful not to identify itself with the war, on any side.

If the USA does not succeed in bringing Iran to heel, then a global recession is inevitable and worldwide economic depression is likely. This would cripple the global economy and the power of the U.S.would further decline.

China, obviously, would suffer massive economic problems, but has the economic, military and political capacity to not simply stay the course, but to emerge even more dominant and with a growing list of ready global partners with whom to do business.

The 19th-Century British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerstone, famously declared:

"... we have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow."

This blunt but honest assessment of realpolitik has dominated state thinking ever since. It certainly drives the thoughts and practices of the USA, and its allies and perceived enemies. It certainly marks out how the struggle for global economic hegemony between the U.S. and China is progressing.

This same approach should find accord with smaller powers. Many of Australia’s near neighbours in the Pacific assert that they want to be a friend to all and an enemy to none. The clarity of such thinking needs to be adopted by Australia.

What is in Australia’s national interest? Surely the answer should be: peace, security and economic progress. Being a perpetual "yes" man to U.S. imperialism and a perpetual partner in American wars cannot serve those national interests.

Greater engagement with the Asian region, peaceful, non-aligned policies that foster good relations and beneficial trade relationships with the dominant economies of the region do serve those interests. While Australia remains a capitalist nation-state, it makes sense to more closely engage with other capitalist states.

China is the most obvious capitalist state to engage with closely. This does not weaken Australia, but permits it to develop an independent foreign and economic policy that allows for peace, stability and economic progress.

Our future, if we are to have a secure future, demands this.

William Briggs is a political economist. His special areas of interest lie in political theory and international political economy. He has been, variously, a teacher, journalist and political activist.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/why-the-liberals-lost-so-badly-in-sa-to-labor--and-one-nation,20875?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/why-the-liberals-lost-so-badly-in-sa-to-labor--and-one-nation,20875?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Why were the Liberals in South Australia so thoroughly demolished by Labor – and also One Nation? Dr Victoria Fielding argues a seismic, generational shift is underway.

AT TIME of publication, the Liberal Party has won five seats in the South Australian election out of 47. Labor, in a landslide, have won 34. PHON has three and is likely to end up with four, being 77 votes ahead of the Liberals in the last seat in doubt, Nurugga, as the final votes are being counted. So, why were the Liberals, the party in power at the previous election just four years ago, so thoroughly demolished — not just by Labor, but also One Nation?

This election result shows there has been a seismic shift in South Australian politics, reflective of generational change occurring across the country.

Many commentators diagnose this shift as reflecting a dissatisfaction with the major parties, or as many people now like to say: the “uniparty”. The accusation goes that the majors are inherently bad, the two-party system does not serve people’s interests and ultimately Labor and the Liberals are just the same.

This “uniparty” accusation is directed at Labor from the Left (the Greens), the Centre (Teals and other Centre-right independents) and the Right (One Nation). Although they all have their own versions, they share the motive of directing any dissatisfaction voters feel towards the Liberals, towards Labor.

However, the theory of mass dissatisfaction with both “the majors” doesn’t cohere with reality. As the ABC's election analyst Antony Green noted, South Australian Labor’s primary vote of 37.7% is down 2.3% compared to 2022, and 7.5% below the 45.2% Labor received in 2006.

Yet in 2026, many ballots had over ten candidates, what with the explosion of minor parties and independents. If there were a major left-wing protest vote amongst progressive voters, the Greens would be the beneficiary. Yet, the Greens only received a 1% increase in their vote.

The result was therefore not a backlash against some theoretical “uniparty”, but rather was about the Liberal Party. And the mess the Liberals are in has nothing to do with bad messaging, a lack of policies, or four leadership changes in four years. It is much more serious than that because it is structural.

 

What the “uniparty” characterisation and the “Labor-and-Liberals-are-just-the-same” accusation hide is that, despite much change in Australian politics, one thing that has never changed is that the two major parties are not the same because they have opposing ideologies.

These opposing ideologies are the foundations through which Labor and Liberals do politics, develop policies and ultimately govern.

As the political arm of the labour movement, Labor exists to further equality of opportunity, wealth and social outcomes. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, as the political arm of corporate interests, opposes equality and rather promotes inequality of wealth. Some more extreme hard-right Liberals also promote social inequality, including gender, cultural and religious inequality, although this is mostly aimed at creating division to win power and then rule for the economic interests of the elite.

These are not small differences between the major parties; they are fundamental.

So, what has happened in this seismic shift? The Liberal Party has traditionally won power through two core strategies. First, they claimed they were better economic managers and stronger on national security. Second, they also ran rabid fear campaigns against Labor reforms, underpinned by the idea that Labor was bad for the economy and only the Liberals could protect jobs and economic growth.

This strategy worked well for the Liberals up until the point when they got found out. For a whole range of reasons – including the Global Financial Crisis and the Labor government’s superior management of it; the Occupy Movement; the opening up of the information environment, to give voice to people beyond the mainstream media who fought the hegemony of neoliberal assumptions like the false concept that wealth trickles down – people have started to wake up to the reality that the Liberal Party does not represent their interests, but indeed only represents the interests of the mega-rich.

At the 2025 Election, for the first time ever, Labor was perceived by a majority of voters as better economic managers than the Liberals.

This wasn’t just a big moment for Australia’s major parties. It marked the death of the idea that those ruling for the rich are making everyone else better off. It heralded a mass understanding that policies aimed at equality – healthcare and disability funding, access to education, workers’ rights, rights for women, environmental protection, infrastructure spending – reforms once seen as wasteful budget items (remember Abbott’s debt and deficit disaster), actually make us all better off.

These problems are not just cracks in the Liberal façade. This awakening that equality is good for the economy was a death knell for the Liberal Party. All it left them with was strategy number two: scare campaigns. Having had decades of experience in running fear campaigns – often premised on disinformation and misrepresentation – the Liberals ran the mother of all scare campaigns, the "No" campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The success of the "No" campaign emboldened the Liberals’ hard-right faction, who believed this was how they would win government. But what they misunderstood was that this campaign didn’t draw voters towards the Liberal Party. All they did was embolden and promote social inequality through the normalisation of hatred, division, racism and disinformation. This didn’t win the Liberals any elections because people still recognised that even if the Liberals serve their social inequality interests, they do not serve their economic interests.

The "No" campaign’s normalisation of hate as a political strategy, however, did present One Nation as a valid alternative to the Liberals for right-wing voters motivated by a desire for social inequality.

Now we finally get to the result of the SA election. Labor, led by popular Premier Peter Malinauskas, held its share of metropolitan Adelaide votes steady, receiving 45.2% of first preferences. Liberals only won 16.2%.

The 18.2% swing against the Liberals in metropolitan Adelaide went almost entirely to One Nation, which received 18.4% of the metro vote. In regional areas, the Liberals had a swing against them of 13.8%, Labor lost 3.3% and One Nation gained 21.5%. All four seats One Nation looks set to win are in outer regional South Australia.

When voters flocked away from the Liberal Party – understanding that the Liberals did not serve their interests – many, particularly in inner-metropolitan Adelaide, came to Labor. These voters ideologically align with Labor because they recognise that equality, tolerance, respect and inclusion, including for multicultural communities, is good for a society.

Ex-Liberal voters, however, who have no interest in equality, went to One Nation. These voters did not go to Labor because they hate Labor. They hate Labor because Labor promotes equality, tolerance, diversity and inclusion, which offends their desire for social inequality.

Ex-Liberal-now-One Nation voters are hellbent on using their vote to promote inequality – particularly inequality for non-white Australians – and are embracing One Nation’s demonisation of immigrants. This explains the one in four South Australians who voted One Nation. They are suffering from economic inequality, which grows their desire to feel privileged socially, particularly based on race.

One Nation, of course, does not serve the economic interests of working people. As a good friend of billionaire Gina Rinehart, it is hardly surprising that Pauline Hanson has said she wants to work with the Liberals and Nationals to oppose Labor. That’s the whole point of One Nation.

One may wonder: will One Nation voters ever wake up to that?

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. You can follow her on Threads @drvicfielding or Bluesky @drvicfielding.bsky.social.

]]>

Why were the Liberals in South Australia so thoroughly demolished by Labor – and also One Nation? Dr Victoria Fielding argues a seismic, generational shift is underway.

AT TIME of publication, the Liberal Party has won five seats in the South Australian election out of 47. Labor, in a landslide, have won 34. PHON has three and is likely to end up with four, being 77 votes ahead of the Liberals in the last seat in doubt, Nurugga, as the final votes are being counted. So, why were the Liberals, the party in power at the previous election just four years ago, so thoroughly demolished — not just by Labor, but also One Nation?

This election result shows there has been a seismic shift in South Australian politics, reflective of generational change occurring across the country.

Many commentators diagnose this shift as reflecting a dissatisfaction with the major parties, or as many people now like to say: the “uniparty”. The accusation goes that the majors are inherently bad, the two-party system does not serve people’s interests and ultimately Labor and the Liberals are just the same.

This “uniparty” accusation is directed at Labor from the Left (the Greens), the Centre (Teals and other Centre-right independents) and the Right (One Nation). Although they all have their own versions, they share the motive of directing any dissatisfaction voters feel towards the Liberals, towards Labor.

However, the theory of mass dissatisfaction with both “the majors” doesn’t cohere with reality. As the ABC's election analyst Antony Green noted, South Australian Labor’s primary vote of 37.7% is down 2.3% compared to 2022, and 7.5% below the 45.2% Labor received in 2006.

Yet in 2026, many ballots had over ten candidates, what with the explosion of minor parties and independents. If there were a major left-wing protest vote amongst progressive voters, the Greens would be the beneficiary. Yet, the Greens only received a 1% increase in their vote.

The result was therefore not a backlash against some theoretical “uniparty”, but rather was about the Liberal Party. And the mess the Liberals are in has nothing to do with bad messaging, a lack of policies, or four leadership changes in four years. It is much more serious than that because it is structural.

 

What the “uniparty” characterisation and the “Labor-and-Liberals-are-just-the-same” accusation hide is that, despite much change in Australian politics, one thing that has never changed is that the two major parties are not the same because they have opposing ideologies.

These opposing ideologies are the foundations through which Labor and Liberals do politics, develop policies and ultimately govern.

As the political arm of the labour movement, Labor exists to further equality of opportunity, wealth and social outcomes. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, as the political arm of corporate interests, opposes equality and rather promotes inequality of wealth. Some more extreme hard-right Liberals also promote social inequality, including gender, cultural and religious inequality, although this is mostly aimed at creating division to win power and then rule for the economic interests of the elite.

These are not small differences between the major parties; they are fundamental.

So, what has happened in this seismic shift? The Liberal Party has traditionally won power through two core strategies. First, they claimed they were better economic managers and stronger on national security. Second, they also ran rabid fear campaigns against Labor reforms, underpinned by the idea that Labor was bad for the economy and only the Liberals could protect jobs and economic growth.

This strategy worked well for the Liberals up until the point when they got found out. For a whole range of reasons – including the Global Financial Crisis and the Labor government’s superior management of it; the Occupy Movement; the opening up of the information environment, to give voice to people beyond the mainstream media who fought the hegemony of neoliberal assumptions like the false concept that wealth trickles down – people have started to wake up to the reality that the Liberal Party does not represent their interests, but indeed only represents the interests of the mega-rich.

At the 2025 Election, for the first time ever, Labor was perceived by a majority of voters as better economic managers than the Liberals.

This wasn’t just a big moment for Australia’s major parties. It marked the death of the idea that those ruling for the rich are making everyone else better off. It heralded a mass understanding that policies aimed at equality – healthcare and disability funding, access to education, workers’ rights, rights for women, environmental protection, infrastructure spending – reforms once seen as wasteful budget items (remember Abbott’s debt and deficit disaster), actually make us all better off.

These problems are not just cracks in the Liberal façade. This awakening that equality is good for the economy was a death knell for the Liberal Party. All it left them with was strategy number two: scare campaigns. Having had decades of experience in running fear campaigns – often premised on disinformation and misrepresentation – the Liberals ran the mother of all scare campaigns, the "No" campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The success of the "No" campaign emboldened the Liberals’ hard-right faction, who believed this was how they would win government. But what they misunderstood was that this campaign didn’t draw voters towards the Liberal Party. All they did was embolden and promote social inequality through the normalisation of hatred, division, racism and disinformation. This didn’t win the Liberals any elections because people still recognised that even if the Liberals serve their social inequality interests, they do not serve their economic interests.

The "No" campaign’s normalisation of hate as a political strategy, however, did present One Nation as a valid alternative to the Liberals for right-wing voters motivated by a desire for social inequality.

Now we finally get to the result of the SA election. Labor, led by popular Premier Peter Malinauskas, held its share of metropolitan Adelaide votes steady, receiving 45.2% of first preferences. Liberals only won 16.2%.

The 18.2% swing against the Liberals in metropolitan Adelaide went almost entirely to One Nation, which received 18.4% of the metro vote. In regional areas, the Liberals had a swing against them of 13.8%, Labor lost 3.3% and One Nation gained 21.5%. All four seats One Nation looks set to win are in outer regional South Australia.

When voters flocked away from the Liberal Party – understanding that the Liberals did not serve their interests – many, particularly in inner-metropolitan Adelaide, came to Labor. These voters ideologically align with Labor because they recognise that equality, tolerance, respect and inclusion, including for multicultural communities, is good for a society.

Ex-Liberal voters, however, who have no interest in equality, went to One Nation. These voters did not go to Labor because they hate Labor. They hate Labor because Labor promotes equality, tolerance, diversity and inclusion, which offends their desire for social inequality.

Ex-Liberal-now-One Nation voters are hellbent on using their vote to promote inequality – particularly inequality for non-white Australians – and are embracing One Nation’s demonisation of immigrants. This explains the one in four South Australians who voted One Nation. They are suffering from economic inequality, which grows their desire to feel privileged socially, particularly based on race.

One Nation, of course, does not serve the economic interests of working people. As a good friend of billionaire Gina Rinehart, it is hardly surprising that Pauline Hanson has said she wants to work with the Liberals and Nationals to oppose Labor. That’s the whole point of One Nation.

One may wonder: will One Nation voters ever wake up to that?

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. You can follow her on Threads @drvicfielding or Bluesky @drvicfielding.bsky.social.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/here-we-joh-again-queenslands-new-speech-bans-and-police-powers,20886?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Thu, 02 Apr 2026 10:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/here-we-joh-again-queenslands-new-speech-bans-and-police-powers,20886?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

On 11 March 2026, the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 became law in Queensland. Within hours of assent, the first arrests occurred and within days, the first police raid was conducted — but this may only be the beginning, writes Tyson Parker.

QUEENSLAND’S NEW LAWS have been said to echo those of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era.

In response to the Bondi Beach terrorist attack on 14 December 2025, the Crisafulli Government merged gun reforms with new police powers and measures to stop hate speech.

Some firearms changes have been broadly supported, including tighter licensing rules, bans on 3D-printed gun blueprints and tougher penalties.

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Queensland vice-president Michael Norris told a Parliamentary Committee, the measures “appropriately focus on criminal misuse and reflect the seriousness of these offences”.

However, the Act also lowers thresholds, narrows protections and expands police powers in concerning ways.

Police monitor pro-Palestinian protestors at rally in Brisbane on 15/06/25 (Image supplied)

Speech and publication restrictions

Under Section 52DA of the Criminal Code, it is now a criminal offence to 'publicly recite, publicly distribute, publish or publicly display' two phrases, if they could 'reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended'.

The two expressions – "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada" – carry a maximum of two years in prison.

Initially, the Bill had left phrases to be banned through future regulations.

Thus, a public Committee of Inquiry had only 17 days to assess the laws and hundreds of public submissions, without knowing the banned terms, which were added at the last minute, along with several other provisions.

The Labor Opposition claimed this was due to a split in the Government's party room, while the LNP Government claimed it was a measure to stop the opposition from repealing or using the same powers in the future.

On 3 March, Opposition Leader Steven Miles said:

“The new laws, not the new new laws, were rejected by the LNP’s party room. We understand that some members of the LNP were concerned enough about free speech that they were considering voting against them."

On 5 March, Police Minister Dan Purdie told Parliament:

"Labor simply cannot be trusted not to repeal the regulations and remove these prohibitions when they return to government. Should a future government wish to add or remove any expressions, they will need to do this via an amendment to the Criminal Code and subject to the full scrutiny of the parliament.”

The late additions denied proper scrutiny of these phrases, when even supporters of the new laws agree that their meanings are contested.

Mr Howard Posner, a Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies adviser, told the committee:

“I am sure there are people who genuinely believe that when they chant ‘globalise the intifada’ what they mean is not a violent internecine war in Australia. Unlike the ‘river to the sea’ argument, [there] is a legitimate disagreement … as to what it means, although it is still horrible. Of course, naive people will chant things they do not really mean, but its meaning is pretty bloody clear.”

Law enforcement needn’t prove someone was actually offended, only that the potential for offence existed.

The law also expands the ban to visual symbols belonging to prescribed organisations, which are determined by regulation as a terrorist organisation or state sponsor of terrorism.

Crucially, the standard of innocent until proven guilty has also arguably been narrowed.

For example, police can arrest journalists over a published phrase, who then must show a reasonable excuse, such as "fair and accurate" reporting, or opposing the ideology, but only in Court following arrest.

The silver lining is that legal experts suggest the laws may yet face Constitutional scrutiny.

Australia has no express Constitutional freedom of speech, but it does have an implied freedom of political communication.

The argument is that the constitution establishes representative government, requiring members of parliament to be ‘directly chosen by the people’. For people to make informed choices, they must be free to communicate about political matters.

Cate Heyworth-Smith KC warned that the laws may be vulnerable if they burden that freedom:

“There is then a tension in any legislation which seeks to impinge upon freedom of political communication in order to stamp out racism. It will be vulnerable to Constitutional challenge if it burdens impermissibly the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters.”

Police monitor pro-Palestinian protestors at rally in Brisbane on 15/06/25 (Image supplied)

Expanded police powers: covert operations and surveillance

Amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (PPRA) have expanded policing capabilities.

Previously, controlled operations and related surveillance powers were generally reserved for offences carrying a maximum sentence of seven years. That threshold is now any indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of at least three years.

The Bill’s Statement of Compatibility acknowledges potential human rights impacts, including privacy and equality before the law, concluding that:

'... on balance, the importance of the Bill’s purpose… outweighs the limited and regulated impact on individual rights.'

Several groups, including Legal Aid Queensland, raised concerns, stating:

'There is no apparent justification for controlled operations … to merely prevent three-year offences like common assault. Such an ambit power is exceptional and perplexing…'

Covert operations are no longer just for evidence-gathering, with Police now explicitly empowered to authorise operations to “frustrate” –disrupt or prevent – the commission of an offence.

Expanded police powers: Warrantless searches and preparation laws

Under Sections 30 and 32 of the PPRA, suspected publication of prohibited expressions can now trigger warrantless searches.

If an officer suspects someone is distributing, reciting or publishing a banned phrase, they can search persons and vehicles and seize personal belongings as evidence. Furthermore, the power to issue a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO) has been stripped from the courts and given to the Police Commissioner.

An FPO can now be based on confidential criminal intelligence that the subject may never see, even on appeal. It can also rely on a broad criminal history, including spent, unrecorded and quashed convictions, as well as withdrawn or struck-out charges.

That leaves people potentially facing warrantless searches while challenging an order blind.

Newly inserted Section 141ZGA of the Weapons Act 1990 also creates another concerning possibility.

FPO search powers can now reach people merely 'in the company of' an FPO subject, allowing police to stop, detain and search them without a warrant if they suspect they have a firearm or related item.

Perhaps the most sweeping uncertainty lies in new Section 540A of the Criminal Code, which creates a 14-year offence for preparing serious violence.

The prosecution does not need to prove preparation for a specific planned offence, or that any offence was ever carried out.

This casts a wide and uncertain net that could blur the line between criminal planning and journalism, artistic work or public commentary, if later said to resemble preparation rather than inquiry or expression.

It’s uncertain how these powers will be used until a precedent is set, although what’s clear is that these broad measures are capable of being used beyond just fighting antisemitism and keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

With raids and arrests already occurring, it’s fair to suspect they may be tested by the stick rather than the carrot.

Those most at risk – as usual – will be minority groups and First Nations communities, activists, immigrants, students and journalists.

Tyson Parker is a freelance journalist, photographer and researcher based in South-East Queensland.

]]>

On 11 March 2026, the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 became law in Queensland. Within hours of assent, the first arrests occurred and within days, the first police raid was conducted — but this may only be the beginning, writes Tyson Parker.

QUEENSLAND’S NEW LAWS have been said to echo those of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era.

In response to the Bondi Beach terrorist attack on 14 December 2025, the Crisafulli Government merged gun reforms with new police powers and measures to stop hate speech.

Some firearms changes have been broadly supported, including tighter licensing rules, bans on 3D-printed gun blueprints and tougher penalties.

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Queensland vice-president Michael Norris told a Parliamentary Committee, the measures “appropriately focus on criminal misuse and reflect the seriousness of these offences”.

However, the Act also lowers thresholds, narrows protections and expands police powers in concerning ways.

Police monitor pro-Palestinian protestors at rally in Brisbane on 15/06/25 (Image supplied)

Speech and publication restrictions

Under Section 52DA of the Criminal Code, it is now a criminal offence to 'publicly recite, publicly distribute, publish or publicly display' two phrases, if they could 'reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended'.

The two expressions – "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada" – carry a maximum of two years in prison.

Initially, the Bill had left phrases to be banned through future regulations.

Thus, a public Committee of Inquiry had only 17 days to assess the laws and hundreds of public submissions, without knowing the banned terms, which were added at the last minute, along with several other provisions.

The Labor Opposition claimed this was due to a split in the Government's party room, while the LNP Government claimed it was a measure to stop the opposition from repealing or using the same powers in the future.

On 3 March, Opposition Leader Steven Miles said:

“The new laws, not the new new laws, were rejected by the LNP’s party room. We understand that some members of the LNP were concerned enough about free speech that they were considering voting against them."

On 5 March, Police Minister Dan Purdie told Parliament:

"Labor simply cannot be trusted not to repeal the regulations and remove these prohibitions when they return to government. Should a future government wish to add or remove any expressions, they will need to do this via an amendment to the Criminal Code and subject to the full scrutiny of the parliament.”

The late additions denied proper scrutiny of these phrases, when even supporters of the new laws agree that their meanings are contested.

Mr Howard Posner, a Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies adviser, told the committee:

“I am sure there are people who genuinely believe that when they chant ‘globalise the intifada’ what they mean is not a violent internecine war in Australia. Unlike the ‘river to the sea’ argument, [there] is a legitimate disagreement … as to what it means, although it is still horrible. Of course, naive people will chant things they do not really mean, but its meaning is pretty bloody clear.”

Law enforcement needn’t prove someone was actually offended, only that the potential for offence existed.

The law also expands the ban to visual symbols belonging to prescribed organisations, which are determined by regulation as a terrorist organisation or state sponsor of terrorism.

Crucially, the standard of innocent until proven guilty has also arguably been narrowed.

For example, police can arrest journalists over a published phrase, who then must show a reasonable excuse, such as "fair and accurate" reporting, or opposing the ideology, but only in Court following arrest.

The silver lining is that legal experts suggest the laws may yet face Constitutional scrutiny.

Australia has no express Constitutional freedom of speech, but it does have an implied freedom of political communication.

The argument is that the constitution establishes representative government, requiring members of parliament to be ‘directly chosen by the people’. For people to make informed choices, they must be free to communicate about political matters.

Cate Heyworth-Smith KC warned that the laws may be vulnerable if they burden that freedom:

“There is then a tension in any legislation which seeks to impinge upon freedom of political communication in order to stamp out racism. It will be vulnerable to Constitutional challenge if it burdens impermissibly the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters.”

Police monitor pro-Palestinian protestors at rally in Brisbane on 15/06/25 (Image supplied)

Expanded police powers: covert operations and surveillance

Amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (PPRA) have expanded policing capabilities.

Previously, controlled operations and related surveillance powers were generally reserved for offences carrying a maximum sentence of seven years. That threshold is now any indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of at least three years.

The Bill’s Statement of Compatibility acknowledges potential human rights impacts, including privacy and equality before the law, concluding that:

'... on balance, the importance of the Bill’s purpose… outweighs the limited and regulated impact on individual rights.'

Several groups, including Legal Aid Queensland, raised concerns, stating:

'There is no apparent justification for controlled operations … to merely prevent three-year offences like common assault. Such an ambit power is exceptional and perplexing…'

Covert operations are no longer just for evidence-gathering, with Police now explicitly empowered to authorise operations to “frustrate” –disrupt or prevent – the commission of an offence.

Expanded police powers: Warrantless searches and preparation laws

Under Sections 30 and 32 of the PPRA, suspected publication of prohibited expressions can now trigger warrantless searches.

If an officer suspects someone is distributing, reciting or publishing a banned phrase, they can search persons and vehicles and seize personal belongings as evidence. Furthermore, the power to issue a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO) has been stripped from the courts and given to the Police Commissioner.

An FPO can now be based on confidential criminal intelligence that the subject may never see, even on appeal. It can also rely on a broad criminal history, including spent, unrecorded and quashed convictions, as well as withdrawn or struck-out charges.

That leaves people potentially facing warrantless searches while challenging an order blind.

Newly inserted Section 141ZGA of the Weapons Act 1990 also creates another concerning possibility.

FPO search powers can now reach people merely 'in the company of' an FPO subject, allowing police to stop, detain and search them without a warrant if they suspect they have a firearm or related item.

Perhaps the most sweeping uncertainty lies in new Section 540A of the Criminal Code, which creates a 14-year offence for preparing serious violence.

The prosecution does not need to prove preparation for a specific planned offence, or that any offence was ever carried out.

This casts a wide and uncertain net that could blur the line between criminal planning and journalism, artistic work or public commentary, if later said to resemble preparation rather than inquiry or expression.

It’s uncertain how these powers will be used until a precedent is set, although what’s clear is that these broad measures are capable of being used beyond just fighting antisemitism and keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

With raids and arrests already occurring, it’s fair to suspect they may be tested by the stick rather than the carrot.

Those most at risk – as usual – will be minority groups and First Nations communities, activists, immigrants, students and journalists.

Tyson Parker is a freelance journalist, photographer and researcher based in South-East Queensland.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/money-laundering-is-big-business,20880?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/money-laundering-is-big-business,20880?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Money laundering is big business, but only because the banks are the partners in laundering.

The 1988 UN Vienna Convention defined money laundering as the transfer of stolen funds for the purpose of concealing the illicit origin of the funds and assisting those involved to evade legal consequences. Money laundering involves three stages; diverting funds away from the crime, layering a trail of concealment and integrating the money to make it look legal.

Money laundering represents an economy in itself, with estimates as high as 5% of global GDP. Almost certainly, it is much higher as 90% of laundering goes undetected and only 0.1 % of illicit funds are recovered. Money laundering is the crime of the digital age, the crime that relies on the anonymity of transactions and the gaps in bank systems.

One of the problems with money laundering is that it is a borderless crime. An estimated 70% percent of laundering crosses at least one border, rendering it difficult for sovereign nations to act. Australia is at the edge of a global hotspot. The Asia‑Pacific accounts for 40% of the world’s money laundering and we are a prime target because of regulatory failures.

The global response has been to fine banks that facilitate money laundering and to require banks to be more compliant with national anti-money laundering (AML) statutes. In 2024, there were US$4.6 billion fines issued globally across 52 enforcement actions and AML compliance cost banks a little more than US$60 billion. However, the fines and the costs of compliance represent less than 0.01% of the money laundered. The most damning statistic is that only 0.1% of suspicious activity is investigated. We are in a dark age of money laundering.

The fight against money laundering began a long time ago, featuring in the prohibition era and expanding in the digital age with the Group of Seven (G7) Financial Action Task Force, successive U.N. conventions and AML laws designed to enhance the monitoring of transactions. There is no universal standard for anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Australia's 2006 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act differs from India’s 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act and from the US Corporate Transparency Act. Money laundering requires global standards, but there is no global standard.

Notwithstanding the limited response, there have been some notable investigations and prosecutions of money laundering. In December 2012, HSCBC paid a $1.9 billion fine for laundering, in July 2014, BNP Paribas was fined $8.9 billion; and in September 2020, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed that US$2trillion of transactions had been laundered by some of the world's largest banks.

Chinese organised criminal groups have been identified as the principal money launderers for drug cartels in Mexico, Italy and elsewhere. In the U.S., Chinese networks drove over US$312 billion in illicit money from 2021 to 2024. Money laundering is the crime no one sees until too late.

AUSTRAC (Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre) is the agency charged with ensuring banks comply with the 2006 AML Act. AUSTRAC is very selective. In 2018, they fined Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) $700 million for breaches of the AML Act and in 2020, they fined Westpac $1.3 billion for breaches of the AML Act. However, in 2022, after a five-year investigation into breaches of the AML Act, the National Australia Bank NAB was not fined. Instead, it entered into an enforceable agreement promising the regulator to do better. Why the selectivity?

Since 2020, there has been an explosion in scams, with Australians losing $7 billion. Most of the money was laundered, an explosion of money laundering without prosecution. In the scam to which we were subjected, hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken out within 24 hours, yet the bank algorithms of the banks did not detect anything anomalous. Why are the banks not prosecuted when there is real evidence of money laundering? This is a question all scam victims ask.

The Government and regulators appear to be soft on money laundering. There appears to have been a systematic strategy to deflect away from laundering.

The Scam Prevention Framework Act 2025 (SPF) does not mention money laundering and the Treasury position paper of November 2025 on scams appears to separate scams and money laundering, stating:

'The rules could be used to exclude the following activities, that in  isolation, would not meet the definition of a scam: certain criminal conduct regulated under anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism  financing (AML/CTF) legislation.'

A scam is the first stage in money laundering. If the money is not laundered, the victim could be able to recover the money. Scams and money laundering are inextricably linked together. They are not separable, but the Government evidently thinks so.

AUSTRAC, which monitors money laundering, is in the Department of Home Affairs, whose Minister is Tony Burke. The scam prevention response is coordinated by the Treasury, whose Minister is Daniel Mulino. Of course, scam victims have been unable to meet either Minister.

The separation of regulatory remit illustrates the fragmentation of Australian regulation that allowed scams to proliferate without accountability of banks that allowed them to proliferate. The UK is years ahead of Australia, with mandatory bank reimbursement for authorised push-payment scams, liability shared between sending and receiving banks, and liability implied by the failure to detect money laundering.

The UK reimburses scam victims 88% of losses in five days, while most scam victims in Australia are fighting for reimbursement after more than two years. Last year, the UK appointed its first Minister for Fraud to coordinate the fight against fraud — particularly cybercrime and money laundering. They established an integrated framework.

In 2020‑23, global crypto‑related money laundering grew by more than 80% and in the  first quarter of 2025, there was a 230% rise in deep‑fake identity attacks. However, what is most troubling for Australia is the possibility of mortgage fraud. One-quarter of global money laundering is now related to real estate.

A recent Commonwealth Bank-commissioned report revealed the number of loans based on doctored documents could exceed $1 billion and that suspicious loans taken out with other banks amount to at least another $1 billion. Mortgage fraud is the new frontier of fraud.

Australia has been too soft on white-collar crime. Regulation has been fragmented and not pre-emptive and we suffer from the bystander problem that she’ll be right… until it's not. Financial crime has no borders; we cannot afford to be the bystanders that we have always been. We need a regulatory reboot. Will any party have the resolve to do it?

Dr Kim Sawyer is a senior fellow in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne.

]]>

Money laundering is big business, but only because the banks are the partners in laundering.

The 1988 UN Vienna Convention defined money laundering as the transfer of stolen funds for the purpose of concealing the illicit origin of the funds and assisting those involved to evade legal consequences. Money laundering involves three stages; diverting funds away from the crime, layering a trail of concealment and integrating the money to make it look legal.

Money laundering represents an economy in itself, with estimates as high as 5% of global GDP. Almost certainly, it is much higher as 90% of laundering goes undetected and only 0.1 % of illicit funds are recovered. Money laundering is the crime of the digital age, the crime that relies on the anonymity of transactions and the gaps in bank systems.

One of the problems with money laundering is that it is a borderless crime. An estimated 70% percent of laundering crosses at least one border, rendering it difficult for sovereign nations to act. Australia is at the edge of a global hotspot. The Asia‑Pacific accounts for 40% of the world’s money laundering and we are a prime target because of regulatory failures.

The global response has been to fine banks that facilitate money laundering and to require banks to be more compliant with national anti-money laundering (AML) statutes. In 2024, there were US$4.6 billion fines issued globally across 52 enforcement actions and AML compliance cost banks a little more than US$60 billion. However, the fines and the costs of compliance represent less than 0.01% of the money laundered. The most damning statistic is that only 0.1% of suspicious activity is investigated. We are in a dark age of money laundering.

The fight against money laundering began a long time ago, featuring in the prohibition era and expanding in the digital age with the Group of Seven (G7) Financial Action Task Force, successive U.N. conventions and AML laws designed to enhance the monitoring of transactions. There is no universal standard for anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Australia's 2006 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act differs from India’s 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act and from the US Corporate Transparency Act. Money laundering requires global standards, but there is no global standard.

Notwithstanding the limited response, there have been some notable investigations and prosecutions of money laundering. In December 2012, HSCBC paid a $1.9 billion fine for laundering, in July 2014, BNP Paribas was fined $8.9 billion; and in September 2020, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed that US$2trillion of transactions had been laundered by some of the world's largest banks.

Chinese organised criminal groups have been identified as the principal money launderers for drug cartels in Mexico, Italy and elsewhere. In the U.S., Chinese networks drove over US$312 billion in illicit money from 2021 to 2024. Money laundering is the crime no one sees until too late.

AUSTRAC (Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre) is the agency charged with ensuring banks comply with the 2006 AML Act. AUSTRAC is very selective. In 2018, they fined Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) $700 million for breaches of the AML Act and in 2020, they fined Westpac $1.3 billion for breaches of the AML Act. However, in 2022, after a five-year investigation into breaches of the AML Act, the National Australia Bank NAB was not fined. Instead, it entered into an enforceable agreement promising the regulator to do better. Why the selectivity?

Since 2020, there has been an explosion in scams, with Australians losing $7 billion. Most of the money was laundered, an explosion of money laundering without prosecution. In the scam to which we were subjected, hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken out within 24 hours, yet the bank algorithms of the banks did not detect anything anomalous. Why are the banks not prosecuted when there is real evidence of money laundering? This is a question all scam victims ask.

The Government and regulators appear to be soft on money laundering. There appears to have been a systematic strategy to deflect away from laundering.

The Scam Prevention Framework Act 2025 (SPF) does not mention money laundering and the Treasury position paper of November 2025 on scams appears to separate scams and money laundering, stating:

'The rules could be used to exclude the following activities, that in  isolation, would not meet the definition of a scam: certain criminal conduct regulated under anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism  financing (AML/CTF) legislation.'

A scam is the first stage in money laundering. If the money is not laundered, the victim could be able to recover the money. Scams and money laundering are inextricably linked together. They are not separable, but the Government evidently thinks so.

AUSTRAC, which monitors money laundering, is in the Department of Home Affairs, whose Minister is Tony Burke. The scam prevention response is coordinated by the Treasury, whose Minister is Daniel Mulino. Of course, scam victims have been unable to meet either Minister.

The separation of regulatory remit illustrates the fragmentation of Australian regulation that allowed scams to proliferate without accountability of banks that allowed them to proliferate. The UK is years ahead of Australia, with mandatory bank reimbursement for authorised push-payment scams, liability shared between sending and receiving banks, and liability implied by the failure to detect money laundering.

The UK reimburses scam victims 88% of losses in five days, while most scam victims in Australia are fighting for reimbursement after more than two years. Last year, the UK appointed its first Minister for Fraud to coordinate the fight against fraud — particularly cybercrime and money laundering. They established an integrated framework.

In 2020‑23, global crypto‑related money laundering grew by more than 80% and in the  first quarter of 2025, there was a 230% rise in deep‑fake identity attacks. However, what is most troubling for Australia is the possibility of mortgage fraud. One-quarter of global money laundering is now related to real estate.

A recent Commonwealth Bank-commissioned report revealed the number of loans based on doctored documents could exceed $1 billion and that suspicious loans taken out with other banks amount to at least another $1 billion. Mortgage fraud is the new frontier of fraud.

Australia has been too soft on white-collar crime. Regulation has been fragmented and not pre-emptive and we suffer from the bystander problem that she’ll be right… until it's not. Financial crime has no borders; we cannot afford to be the bystanders that we have always been. We need a regulatory reboot. Will any party have the resolve to do it?

Dr Kim Sawyer is a senior fellow in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/iran-war-has-exposed-australias-vulnerabilities-and-misplaced-priorities,20882?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/iran-war-has-exposed-australias-vulnerabilities-and-misplaced-priorities,20882?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Successive Australian governments’ misplaced priority on military “security” against a fictitious threat has left Australians without adequate fuel, food and transportation security.

The disruption to oil supplies, resulting from the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, has exposed this vulnerability.

At time of writing, 470 service stations across Australia were without petrol or diesel and the cost of both these fuels has skyrocketed, impacting the cost and ability to transport produce from farm to supermarket. The cost of everyday foodstuffs is escalating. The recent interest rate hike has put further financial pressure on mortgage holders. Workers are being urged to use public transport or work from home to reduce demand on scarce fuel supplies. Any worsening of the situation could bring in petrol and food rationing.

Even prior to the Iran War, according to Foodbank Australia, around 20 per cent of households nationwide were severely food insecure, meaning they were skipping meals or going entire days without eating.

Their report highlighted how the housing crisis is intensifying the problem, with 48 per cent of renters experiencing food insecurity, and being forced to choose between paying rent and buying food.

One must ask why, in a supposedly rich country like Australia, so many people are struggling to survive. Why has our fuel, food and transportation security become so vulnerable to overseas war disruption?

The responsibility for this situation lies entirely with successive Australian governments of both major parties, who have, for decades, focussed on military “security” for the nation and spent heavily in support of it. And this, despite lack of any realistic military threat, imminent or foreseen. They have, as part of their subservience to U.S. foreign policy, persisted with the Force Posture Agreement and the AUKUS Security Treaty, facilitating an increased US military footprint on Australia and enormous expenditures on so-called defence, which in reality means arming our Defence Force (ADF) for integration with the U.S. armed forces and providing extensive facilities for U.S. military operations in our country.

Facilities being provided to the U.S. military include training facilities at the Bradshaw Training Range and Delamere bombing range in NT, accommodation for 2,500 U.S. marines in Darwin each year, port facilities at HMAS Stirling in WA for U.S nuclear hunter-killer submarines, with the Government considering building an East Coast port for the same purpose.

RAAF Tindal in the NT is being upgraded to allow the stationing of up to six U.S. B52 bombers, some of which are nuclear-capable. U.S. military officers are now embedded in our defence intelligence system, in a combined operation based in Canberra.

Billions of dollars have been given to U.S and U.K shipyards to prop them up in the hope that it will enable Australia to buy/build up to eight nuclear hunter-killer submarines, which, if we get them at all, will inevitably be drawn into U.S. wars. This is in addition to Pine Gap, the most important U.S military intelligence gathering facility outside the continental U.S., and the North-West Cape submarine communications station, which, according to journalist Peter Cronau, was most probably the source of the firing command which resulted in a U.S. submarine sinking the Iranian frigate recently with heavy loss of Iranian life.

Any realistic assessment of this U.S. military buildup and expansion of bases, be they U.S. or jointly operated, shows that, rather than enhancing our security, they have made Australia a certain target for retaliatory strikes in the event of war between the U.S. and its numerous enemies.

The Governments’ myopic, misplaced focus on military “security” has resulted in other vital areas of human security being neglected, including fuel security, food security, health security, transportation security, climate security, shelter security and communications security.

Successive governments’ failure to ensure that Australia has the internationally recommended 90-day supply of fuel for the nation in case of disruptions to overseas supply is not due just to misplaced priorities, but is clearly a dereliction of duty verging on incompetence.

In fact, they have allowed the level of storage to drop to one-third of this recommended level.

Successive governments have allowed this industry to remain in the ownership and therefore control of foreign corporations, mainly American. It has allowed them to operate with only one-third of the recommended level of fuel security storage and, even worse, to close six of the eight refineries operating in Australia and, instead, rely on overseas refineries.

Due to this dereliction of duty, transportation fuel for Australians is now vulnerable to shipping disruption due, for example, to war — as is now happening with the closure of the Strait of Homuz. And in this case, the Australian Government is supporting the illegal U.S./Israeli way on Iran, which is responsible for the disruption.

The way forward

Short term, the Australian Government must cease any involvement in the Illegal U.S./Israeli war on Iran, recalling ADF personnel and equipment from the Middle East, close U.S. access to Pine Gap and the N/W submarine communications station and urge an end to hostilities, and a return to the conference table to determine a blueprint for peace and security for all the people in the Middle East.

Long-term, the Australian Government must become involved in the energy supply industry. This, in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, accelerate electrification of transportation, including trucks and build enough publicly-owned fuel storage capacity – and, if necessary, refining capacity – to ensure Australia meets the recommended 90 days of fuel security.

Our Government must refocus its priorities away from contrived security threats and subservience to the U.S. alliance, and concentrate on our real security needs: fuel/energy, food, transportation, shelter, health, communications and the climate crisis.

Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist going back to his full-time voluntary organising work in the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, for which he was, with Jim Cairns, the Victorian representative on the National Vietnam Moratorium Campaign committee. He has continued since in peace activities and more recently as a member of the national coordinating committee for the Independence and Peaceful Australia network and editor of its monthly publication, 'Voice'.

]]>

Successive Australian governments’ misplaced priority on military “security” against a fictitious threat has left Australians without adequate fuel, food and transportation security.

The disruption to oil supplies, resulting from the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, has exposed this vulnerability.

At time of writing, 470 service stations across Australia were without petrol or diesel and the cost of both these fuels has skyrocketed, impacting the cost and ability to transport produce from farm to supermarket. The cost of everyday foodstuffs is escalating. The recent interest rate hike has put further financial pressure on mortgage holders. Workers are being urged to use public transport or work from home to reduce demand on scarce fuel supplies. Any worsening of the situation could bring in petrol and food rationing.

Even prior to the Iran War, according to Foodbank Australia, around 20 per cent of households nationwide were severely food insecure, meaning they were skipping meals or going entire days without eating.

Their report highlighted how the housing crisis is intensifying the problem, with 48 per cent of renters experiencing food insecurity, and being forced to choose between paying rent and buying food.

One must ask why, in a supposedly rich country like Australia, so many people are struggling to survive. Why has our fuel, food and transportation security become so vulnerable to overseas war disruption?

The responsibility for this situation lies entirely with successive Australian governments of both major parties, who have, for decades, focussed on military “security” for the nation and spent heavily in support of it. And this, despite lack of any realistic military threat, imminent or foreseen. They have, as part of their subservience to U.S. foreign policy, persisted with the Force Posture Agreement and the AUKUS Security Treaty, facilitating an increased US military footprint on Australia and enormous expenditures on so-called defence, which in reality means arming our Defence Force (ADF) for integration with the U.S. armed forces and providing extensive facilities for U.S. military operations in our country.

Facilities being provided to the U.S. military include training facilities at the Bradshaw Training Range and Delamere bombing range in NT, accommodation for 2,500 U.S. marines in Darwin each year, port facilities at HMAS Stirling in WA for U.S nuclear hunter-killer submarines, with the Government considering building an East Coast port for the same purpose.

RAAF Tindal in the NT is being upgraded to allow the stationing of up to six U.S. B52 bombers, some of which are nuclear-capable. U.S. military officers are now embedded in our defence intelligence system, in a combined operation based in Canberra.

Billions of dollars have been given to U.S and U.K shipyards to prop them up in the hope that it will enable Australia to buy/build up to eight nuclear hunter-killer submarines, which, if we get them at all, will inevitably be drawn into U.S. wars. This is in addition to Pine Gap, the most important U.S military intelligence gathering facility outside the continental U.S., and the North-West Cape submarine communications station, which, according to journalist Peter Cronau, was most probably the source of the firing command which resulted in a U.S. submarine sinking the Iranian frigate recently with heavy loss of Iranian life.

Any realistic assessment of this U.S. military buildup and expansion of bases, be they U.S. or jointly operated, shows that, rather than enhancing our security, they have made Australia a certain target for retaliatory strikes in the event of war between the U.S. and its numerous enemies.

The Governments’ myopic, misplaced focus on military “security” has resulted in other vital areas of human security being neglected, including fuel security, food security, health security, transportation security, climate security, shelter security and communications security.

Successive governments’ failure to ensure that Australia has the internationally recommended 90-day supply of fuel for the nation in case of disruptions to overseas supply is not due just to misplaced priorities, but is clearly a dereliction of duty verging on incompetence.

In fact, they have allowed the level of storage to drop to one-third of this recommended level.

Successive governments have allowed this industry to remain in the ownership and therefore control of foreign corporations, mainly American. It has allowed them to operate with only one-third of the recommended level of fuel security storage and, even worse, to close six of the eight refineries operating in Australia and, instead, rely on overseas refineries.

Due to this dereliction of duty, transportation fuel for Australians is now vulnerable to shipping disruption due, for example, to war — as is now happening with the closure of the Strait of Homuz. And in this case, the Australian Government is supporting the illegal U.S./Israeli way on Iran, which is responsible for the disruption.

The way forward

Short term, the Australian Government must cease any involvement in the Illegal U.S./Israeli war on Iran, recalling ADF personnel and equipment from the Middle East, close U.S. access to Pine Gap and the N/W submarine communications station and urge an end to hostilities, and a return to the conference table to determine a blueprint for peace and security for all the people in the Middle East.

Long-term, the Australian Government must become involved in the energy supply industry. This, in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, accelerate electrification of transportation, including trucks and build enough publicly-owned fuel storage capacity – and, if necessary, refining capacity – to ensure Australia meets the recommended 90 days of fuel security.

Our Government must refocus its priorities away from contrived security threats and subservience to the U.S. alliance, and concentrate on our real security needs: fuel/energy, food, transportation, shelter, health, communications and the climate crisis.

Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist going back to his full-time voluntary organising work in the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, for which he was, with Jim Cairns, the Victorian representative on the National Vietnam Moratorium Campaign committee. He has continued since in peace activities and more recently as a member of the national coordinating committee for the Independence and Peaceful Australia network and editor of its monthly publication, 'Voice'.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/living-inside-the-machine-how-digital-systems-reshape-our-world,20877?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/living-inside-the-machine-how-digital-systems-reshape-our-world,20877?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The digital revolution is not just creating new tools, it is creating a new environment in which people increasingly inhabit — and in which very real dangers exist, says Paul Budde.

DEBATES ABOUT artificial intelligence, data centres and social media usually focus on regulation, energy use, cybersecurity and productivity. These are important issues, but they share a hidden assumption: technology is treated as an object, something outside society that we can manage through better rules or better engineering.

A different perspective emerges if we look at these developments through the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and his concept of "Dasein".

For readers unfamiliar with philosophy, the idea is simple. Heidegger argued that humans do not stand outside the world observing it like detached scientists. We always exist within a world shaped by culture, institutions, technologies and everyday practices. He called this human condition Dasein — literally “being there”.

Our understanding of reality depends on the environment in which we live. When that environment changes, the way we experience the world changes as well.

This matters in the digital age.

The digital world we inhabit

Over the past two decades, large parts of modern life have moved into digital systems. Communication, knowledge, finance, governance and social interaction now depend heavily on global digital infrastructure.

Much of this infrastructure is controlled by a handful of technology giants, such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google. They do not merely provide tools. They design, operate and control the systems through which modern societies increasingly function.

Government services run on their cloud platforms. AI models rely on their computing resources. Global data flows through their networks.

Seen through the lens of Dasein, this means technology is no longer simply something we use. It becomes part of the world in which we live.

When platforms shape experience

Digital systems do more than host our activities. They influence how those activities take place.

Search engines determine which knowledge becomes visible. Social media algorithms shape which stories spread. Platform design influences how people communicate and interact.

Our digital experiences are therefore not neutral. They are structured by systems designed around engagement, data extraction and market power.

This creates a striking reversal: rather than humans simply using digital tools, our lives increasingly unfold inside environments created by technological platforms.

The logic of those environments helps shape how we see the world.

Recent developments suggest this shift is beginning to be recognised beyond academic debate. In the United States, court cases have started to focus on the design of social media platforms themselves, holding companies accountable for harm linked to addictive features rather than just content. This reflects a growing awareness that these systems shape behaviour and experience at a structural level.

Misinformation as part of the environment

This becomes especially clear with misinformation.

Most responses focus on content: fake news, manipulated images or misleading AI-generated material. Governments answer with fact-checking, moderation and media literacy.

But the deeper problem lies in the information environment itself.

Digital platforms structure how information appears and spreads. Their algorithms often reward emotional, divisive and highly engaging material. Over time, misinformation stops being just false content online. It becomes part of the background through which people interpret events.

From a Heideggerian perspective, misinformation can become part of the world of Dasein itself. It shapes how people understand politics, institutions and society.

When groups of people live in different algorithmically shaped information spaces, they can end up inhabiting different versions of reality.

Teenagers and the new digital Dasein

The effects are especially visible among teenagers.

For many young people, social media is not simply a communication tool. It is a central social environment where identity, friendship and recognition are formed. Platforms such as TikTok and Instagram help shape the world in which they experience themselves and others.

Algorithms reward visibility, emotional intensity and constant engagement. Attention becomes currency and social comparison becomes continuous.

For teenagers growing up in this environment, the digital ecosystem forms part of their everyday world. In Heidegger’s terms, their Dasein develops partly within systems designed to maximise engagement rather than wellbeing.

That should concern all of us.

Policy responses are also emerging internationally. Australia’s move to restrict social media access for under-16s is gaining attention, with countries such as the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands exploring similar measures. While these initiatives differ in scope and effectiveness, they signal a broader recognition that digital platforms have become formative environments, particularly for younger generations.

The real policy question

Public debate still treats these developments mainly as technical challenges: regulating AI, securing data, reducing energy use and improving competition.

These matter, but they do not go far enough.

The digital revolution is not just creating new tools. It is creating a new environment in which societies increasingly live. If that environment is designed and controlled primarily by corporate power, democratic societies risk becoming inhabitants of systems they do not shape.

Heidegger’s concept of Dasein reminds us that the real issue is not simply how we regulate technology.

It is: what kind of world we are building to live in.

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

]]>

The digital revolution is not just creating new tools, it is creating a new environment in which people increasingly inhabit — and in which very real dangers exist, says Paul Budde.

DEBATES ABOUT artificial intelligence, data centres and social media usually focus on regulation, energy use, cybersecurity and productivity. These are important issues, but they share a hidden assumption: technology is treated as an object, something outside society that we can manage through better rules or better engineering.

A different perspective emerges if we look at these developments through the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and his concept of "Dasein".

For readers unfamiliar with philosophy, the idea is simple. Heidegger argued that humans do not stand outside the world observing it like detached scientists. We always exist within a world shaped by culture, institutions, technologies and everyday practices. He called this human condition Dasein — literally “being there”.

Our understanding of reality depends on the environment in which we live. When that environment changes, the way we experience the world changes as well.

This matters in the digital age.

The digital world we inhabit

Over the past two decades, large parts of modern life have moved into digital systems. Communication, knowledge, finance, governance and social interaction now depend heavily on global digital infrastructure.

Much of this infrastructure is controlled by a handful of technology giants, such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google. They do not merely provide tools. They design, operate and control the systems through which modern societies increasingly function.

Government services run on their cloud platforms. AI models rely on their computing resources. Global data flows through their networks.

Seen through the lens of Dasein, this means technology is no longer simply something we use. It becomes part of the world in which we live.

When platforms shape experience

Digital systems do more than host our activities. They influence how those activities take place.

Search engines determine which knowledge becomes visible. Social media algorithms shape which stories spread. Platform design influences how people communicate and interact.

Our digital experiences are therefore not neutral. They are structured by systems designed around engagement, data extraction and market power.

This creates a striking reversal: rather than humans simply using digital tools, our lives increasingly unfold inside environments created by technological platforms.

The logic of those environments helps shape how we see the world.

Recent developments suggest this shift is beginning to be recognised beyond academic debate. In the United States, court cases have started to focus on the design of social media platforms themselves, holding companies accountable for harm linked to addictive features rather than just content. This reflects a growing awareness that these systems shape behaviour and experience at a structural level.

Misinformation as part of the environment

This becomes especially clear with misinformation.

Most responses focus on content: fake news, manipulated images or misleading AI-generated material. Governments answer with fact-checking, moderation and media literacy.

But the deeper problem lies in the information environment itself.

Digital platforms structure how information appears and spreads. Their algorithms often reward emotional, divisive and highly engaging material. Over time, misinformation stops being just false content online. It becomes part of the background through which people interpret events.

From a Heideggerian perspective, misinformation can become part of the world of Dasein itself. It shapes how people understand politics, institutions and society.

When groups of people live in different algorithmically shaped information spaces, they can end up inhabiting different versions of reality.

Teenagers and the new digital Dasein

The effects are especially visible among teenagers.

For many young people, social media is not simply a communication tool. It is a central social environment where identity, friendship and recognition are formed. Platforms such as TikTok and Instagram help shape the world in which they experience themselves and others.

Algorithms reward visibility, emotional intensity and constant engagement. Attention becomes currency and social comparison becomes continuous.

For teenagers growing up in this environment, the digital ecosystem forms part of their everyday world. In Heidegger’s terms, their Dasein develops partly within systems designed to maximise engagement rather than wellbeing.

That should concern all of us.

Policy responses are also emerging internationally. Australia’s move to restrict social media access for under-16s is gaining attention, with countries such as the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands exploring similar measures. While these initiatives differ in scope and effectiveness, they signal a broader recognition that digital platforms have become formative environments, particularly for younger generations.

The real policy question

Public debate still treats these developments mainly as technical challenges: regulating AI, securing data, reducing energy use and improving competition.

These matter, but they do not go far enough.

The digital revolution is not just creating new tools. It is creating a new environment in which societies increasingly live. If that environment is designed and controlled primarily by corporate power, democratic societies risk becoming inhabitants of systems they do not shape.

Heidegger’s concept of Dasein reminds us that the real issue is not simply how we regulate technology.

It is: what kind of world we are building to live in.

Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/how-to-know-when-its-time-to-restring-your-racquet,20878?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Wed, 01 Apr 2026 01:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/how-to-know-when-its-time-to-restring-your-racquet,20878?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Most tennis players replace their racquet long before they give serious thought to their strings.

Yet the string bed is the only part of the racquet that actually makes contact with the ball. Everything that happens in a rally, the power, the spin, the feel, and the control, runs through the strings first. Playing with strings that have lost their tension and elasticity is like driving a high-performance car on flat tyres. The frame might be perfect, but the performance will not be.

The challenge is that string degradation happens gradually. There is rarely a single moment where the strings obviously fail. Instead, the tension drops incrementally, the response becomes duller and the feel changes in ways that are easy to attribute to your technique rather than your equipment. By the time most recreational players notice something is wrong, they have been playing on dead strings for weeks or months.

Understanding the signs that your strings need replacing and knowing what to do about it is one of the simplest and most impactful upgrades any player can make to their game.

The most reliable rule of thumb in the sport is to restring your racquet as many times per year as you play per week. If you play three times a week, you should be restringing approximately three times per year. For competitive players training daily, that means restringing every six to eight weeks. Sturdy Racquets offers a professional restringing service that keeps your string bed performing at the tension your game depends on.

The physical signs your strings are done

The most obvious sign that strings need replacing is a visible break. But waiting for a string to snap means you have already been playing on a compromised setup for some time. The more useful signals appear well before that point.

Look closely at the main strings where they cross. Fraying at the intersections is a reliable indicator that the string has taken significant wear. Once you can see the fibres starting to separate, the string has lost structural integrity even if it has not broken outright.

String movement is another indicator worth monitoring. Fresh strings stay in place after each shot and spring back to position. Strings that have lost their resilience move noticeably during play and require constant realignment. If you find yourself pushing your strings back into position between points, it is a clear sign the string bed needs attention.

The texture of the string surface also changes over time. Natural gut and multifilament strings in particular lose their outer coating with use, which reduces their ability to grip the ball and generate spin. Running your fingers along the main strings tells you a lot about how much life is left in them.

The feel you might be ignoring

Beyond the visible signs, the most informative signal is the feel of the ball on the racquet. Fresh strings at the right tension produce a satisfying, responsive impact. The ball feels connected to the racquet through the swing and launches cleanly with the amount of spin and pace you intended.

Strings that have lost tension produce a noticeably different sensation. The ball feels heavier on impact. The response is mushier and less predictable. Power that used to come from the string bed now requires more arm effort to generate, which over time contributes to the arm fatigue and elbow strain that are among the most common recreational tennis complaints.

Many players who describe arm soreness or a loss of pop in their shots are actually playing on strings that are significantly below their optimal tension. The fix is not a new racquet. It is a restring.

Tension loss happens even when you're not playing

One of the less intuitive aspects of string maintenance is that tension loss is not only caused by hitting. Strings lose tension simply through time, exposure to temperature changes and the stress of being under constant tension in the frame.

A racquet that has sat in a hot car, a cool shed, or a gear bag for several months will have lost meaningful tension even if it has barely been used. This is why the number of times per year you play is a guide rather than an absolute rule. If your racquet has been sitting idle for several months, it is worth restringing before a significant match or an intensive training block regardless of how much use it has seen.

How string type affects how long they last

Not all strings degrade at the same rate. Polyester strings, which are common among intermediate and advanced players for their durability and spin-friendly texture, hold tension for longer than natural gut or multifilament strings. However, polyester strings also lose their playability more suddenly and feel dead for longer before a player notices the degradation.

Natural gut and multifilament strings provide superior feel and arm comfort but require more frequent restringing because they lose tension more quickly. Players who use these string types generally restring more frequently and notice a more obvious performance difference when they do.

Hybrid setups, combining a polyester main with a natural gut or multifilament cross, balance durability with comfort and are increasingly popular among players who want the best of both categories. Regardless of string type, the timing principles remain the same.

Making restringing a habit rather than a reaction

The players who get the most out of their equipment treat restringing as a regular part of their tennis routine rather than something they do only after a string breaks. Building a restring schedule into your training calendar, tied to the number of times you play each week, keeps your string bed performing consistently and removes the performance variable that dead strings introduce.

Your technique, your fitness and your tactics all improve with practice, and coaching. Your strings should not be the thing holding your game back.

 

]]>

Most tennis players replace their racquet long before they give serious thought to their strings.

Yet the string bed is the only part of the racquet that actually makes contact with the ball. Everything that happens in a rally, the power, the spin, the feel, and the control, runs through the strings first. Playing with strings that have lost their tension and elasticity is like driving a high-performance car on flat tyres. The frame might be perfect, but the performance will not be.

The challenge is that string degradation happens gradually. There is rarely a single moment where the strings obviously fail. Instead, the tension drops incrementally, the response becomes duller and the feel changes in ways that are easy to attribute to your technique rather than your equipment. By the time most recreational players notice something is wrong, they have been playing on dead strings for weeks or months.

Understanding the signs that your strings need replacing and knowing what to do about it is one of the simplest and most impactful upgrades any player can make to their game.

The most reliable rule of thumb in the sport is to restring your racquet as many times per year as you play per week. If you play three times a week, you should be restringing approximately three times per year. For competitive players training daily, that means restringing every six to eight weeks. Sturdy Racquets offers a professional restringing service that keeps your string bed performing at the tension your game depends on.

The physical signs your strings are done

The most obvious sign that strings need replacing is a visible break. But waiting for a string to snap means you have already been playing on a compromised setup for some time. The more useful signals appear well before that point.

Look closely at the main strings where they cross. Fraying at the intersections is a reliable indicator that the string has taken significant wear. Once you can see the fibres starting to separate, the string has lost structural integrity even if it has not broken outright.

String movement is another indicator worth monitoring. Fresh strings stay in place after each shot and spring back to position. Strings that have lost their resilience move noticeably during play and require constant realignment. If you find yourself pushing your strings back into position between points, it is a clear sign the string bed needs attention.

The texture of the string surface also changes over time. Natural gut and multifilament strings in particular lose their outer coating with use, which reduces their ability to grip the ball and generate spin. Running your fingers along the main strings tells you a lot about how much life is left in them.

The feel you might be ignoring

Beyond the visible signs, the most informative signal is the feel of the ball on the racquet. Fresh strings at the right tension produce a satisfying, responsive impact. The ball feels connected to the racquet through the swing and launches cleanly with the amount of spin and pace you intended.

Strings that have lost tension produce a noticeably different sensation. The ball feels heavier on impact. The response is mushier and less predictable. Power that used to come from the string bed now requires more arm effort to generate, which over time contributes to the arm fatigue and elbow strain that are among the most common recreational tennis complaints.

Many players who describe arm soreness or a loss of pop in their shots are actually playing on strings that are significantly below their optimal tension. The fix is not a new racquet. It is a restring.

Tension loss happens even when you're not playing

One of the less intuitive aspects of string maintenance is that tension loss is not only caused by hitting. Strings lose tension simply through time, exposure to temperature changes and the stress of being under constant tension in the frame.

A racquet that has sat in a hot car, a cool shed, or a gear bag for several months will have lost meaningful tension even if it has barely been used. This is why the number of times per year you play is a guide rather than an absolute rule. If your racquet has been sitting idle for several months, it is worth restringing before a significant match or an intensive training block regardless of how much use it has seen.

How string type affects how long they last

Not all strings degrade at the same rate. Polyester strings, which are common among intermediate and advanced players for their durability and spin-friendly texture, hold tension for longer than natural gut or multifilament strings. However, polyester strings also lose their playability more suddenly and feel dead for longer before a player notices the degradation.

Natural gut and multifilament strings provide superior feel and arm comfort but require more frequent restringing because they lose tension more quickly. Players who use these string types generally restring more frequently and notice a more obvious performance difference when they do.

Hybrid setups, combining a polyester main with a natural gut or multifilament cross, balance durability with comfort and are increasingly popular among players who want the best of both categories. Regardless of string type, the timing principles remain the same.

Making restringing a habit rather than a reaction

The players who get the most out of their equipment treat restringing as a regular part of their tennis routine rather than something they do only after a string breaks. Building a restring schedule into your training calendar, tied to the number of times you play each week, keeps your string bed performing consistently and removes the performance variable that dead strings introduce.

Your technique, your fitness and your tactics all improve with practice, and coaching. Your strings should not be the thing holding your game back.

 

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/time-for-a-second-american-revolution,20876?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/time-for-a-second-american-revolution,20876?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

If it isn't time for America to revolt against its revolting leaders, perhaps it's time for Australia to rebel and assert independence from an increasingly despotic Empire, says Professor Mark Beeson.

The American Revolution (1775-83), aka the War of Independence, led to the birth of the United States and its eventual emergence as the most powerful country the world has ever seen. Americans are understandably proud of this revolutionary heritage, so much so that the American Constitution, signed in 1789, has taken on the status of an inviolable, sacred text.

Rather ironically, given the currently difficult relationship between the U.S. and Europe, the Constitution was inspired by principles that emerged during the Enlightenment, and which  sought to enshrine individual rights and freedoms. Some of them, like the freedom to bear arms, look anachronistic and dangerous, while others, like freedom of speech and assembly, are routinely violated by the Trump administration, which has little time for such niceties. 

Whatever the merits and shortcomings of the American legal system, Donald Trump plainly thinks they don’t apply to him, as his comment about his ability to shoot someone in the street without consequences demonstrates. The flagrant illegality of many of Trump’s domestic and foreign policies demonstrate a similar contempt for other laws, and principles that provide the sorts of checks and balances that are supposed to distinguish government in the US.

It’s not surprising that Trump thinks he’s the most powerful man in the world, possibly ever. Unfortunately for the rest of us, he’s probably right. No one else has ever had the sort of military and economic leverage the US still enjoys, even if America’s current policies are rapidly undermining confidence in its ability or willingness to act as a stable hegemon.

That’s unlikely to influence 79-year-old Trump, however, because whatever he does isn’t going to affect him for too much longer. For succeeding generations who will inherit the increasingly chaotic strategic, economic and environmental mess he leaves behind, though, having someone a growing number of Americans see as a corrupt, narcissistic megalomaniac as president is probably not optimal at this historical juncture.

The Twenty-Fiifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution sets out conditions how the U.S. can rid itself of a leader who is plainly unfit for office. But when Trump retains a tight grip of the Republican party, and when many members and supporters of his administration benefit directly from a continuation of business as usual, even when that includes starting illegal wars on a whim, nothing is likely to change.

Progressively-minded Americans – yes, they do still exist – are pinning their hopes on the mid-term elections which have the potential to give Democrats a majority in the House and make it harder for Trump to do ‘anything I want’. However, the growing number of obstacles being created to voting, coupled with gerrymandering and even the possibility that they may not happen at all if America’s at war or dealing with domestic social unrest, mean that change may not happen via the ballot box.

If democratic processes, the foundation of the American politics and its claims to be an inspiration for the rest of the world are undermined, or the result of an election is contested or ignored by the Trump administration, what then? What should Americans and the rest of the world for that matter, do in an effort to restore democracy and the rule of law?

Given that the American military’s primary duty is to the Constitution, not to the American President, despite his role as the Commander-in-Chief, we might reasonably expect that the armed forces would be staunch defenders of the rule of law. But the military’s role in the illegal attack on Iran suggests that this may be wishful thinking, especially when that involves international law. The willingness of the military to become actively involved in curbing alleged civil unrest doesn’t inspire confidence either.

 

While it’s not as risky demonstrating in the U.S. as it is in Iran, the stakes are arguably even higher. Despite all the bluster about the threat Iran poses, it has nothing like the capacity of America to upend the entire international order. It is the U.S., after all, that is currently destabilising the entire Middle East, facilitating Israel’s increasingly genocidal imperialism and wrecking the global economy.

Civil disobedience in the USA may be dangerous and destabilising, but it may be less of a threat to national and global stability than the continuation of the Trump regime. Only Americans can fix this increasingly urgent and destructive problem.

The rest of the world politely pointing out to Americans that their country has a dangerous and destructive government, and that they need to do something about it for their own sakes and for ours might help. Encouraging our own governments to play a part in this process, as some of the U.S.’s traditional European allies are beginning to do, also might help.

Given that Australia’s leaders have spent the last 80 years becoming America’s trusted ally, whose views are apparently always taken seriously in Washington, it would be unfortunate if the U.S. became the sort of authoritarian power many analysts fear. Perhaps this is Australia’s chance to exercise some of that influence we’re always hearing about.

That's one revolutionary idea we should all be able to get behind.

Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

]]>

If it isn't time for America to revolt against its revolting leaders, perhaps it's time for Australia to rebel and assert independence from an increasingly despotic Empire, says Professor Mark Beeson.

The American Revolution (1775-83), aka the War of Independence, led to the birth of the United States and its eventual emergence as the most powerful country the world has ever seen. Americans are understandably proud of this revolutionary heritage, so much so that the American Constitution, signed in 1789, has taken on the status of an inviolable, sacred text.

Rather ironically, given the currently difficult relationship between the U.S. and Europe, the Constitution was inspired by principles that emerged during the Enlightenment, and which  sought to enshrine individual rights and freedoms. Some of them, like the freedom to bear arms, look anachronistic and dangerous, while others, like freedom of speech and assembly, are routinely violated by the Trump administration, which has little time for such niceties. 

Whatever the merits and shortcomings of the American legal system, Donald Trump plainly thinks they don’t apply to him, as his comment about his ability to shoot someone in the street without consequences demonstrates. The flagrant illegality of many of Trump’s domestic and foreign policies demonstrate a similar contempt for other laws, and principles that provide the sorts of checks and balances that are supposed to distinguish government in the US.

It’s not surprising that Trump thinks he’s the most powerful man in the world, possibly ever. Unfortunately for the rest of us, he’s probably right. No one else has ever had the sort of military and economic leverage the US still enjoys, even if America’s current policies are rapidly undermining confidence in its ability or willingness to act as a stable hegemon.

That’s unlikely to influence 79-year-old Trump, however, because whatever he does isn’t going to affect him for too much longer. For succeeding generations who will inherit the increasingly chaotic strategic, economic and environmental mess he leaves behind, though, having someone a growing number of Americans see as a corrupt, narcissistic megalomaniac as president is probably not optimal at this historical juncture.

The Twenty-Fiifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution sets out conditions how the U.S. can rid itself of a leader who is plainly unfit for office. But when Trump retains a tight grip of the Republican party, and when many members and supporters of his administration benefit directly from a continuation of business as usual, even when that includes starting illegal wars on a whim, nothing is likely to change.

Progressively-minded Americans – yes, they do still exist – are pinning their hopes on the mid-term elections which have the potential to give Democrats a majority in the House and make it harder for Trump to do ‘anything I want’. However, the growing number of obstacles being created to voting, coupled with gerrymandering and even the possibility that they may not happen at all if America’s at war or dealing with domestic social unrest, mean that change may not happen via the ballot box.

If democratic processes, the foundation of the American politics and its claims to be an inspiration for the rest of the world are undermined, or the result of an election is contested or ignored by the Trump administration, what then? What should Americans and the rest of the world for that matter, do in an effort to restore democracy and the rule of law?

Given that the American military’s primary duty is to the Constitution, not to the American President, despite his role as the Commander-in-Chief, we might reasonably expect that the armed forces would be staunch defenders of the rule of law. But the military’s role in the illegal attack on Iran suggests that this may be wishful thinking, especially when that involves international law. The willingness of the military to become actively involved in curbing alleged civil unrest doesn’t inspire confidence either.

 

While it’s not as risky demonstrating in the U.S. as it is in Iran, the stakes are arguably even higher. Despite all the bluster about the threat Iran poses, it has nothing like the capacity of America to upend the entire international order. It is the U.S., after all, that is currently destabilising the entire Middle East, facilitating Israel’s increasingly genocidal imperialism and wrecking the global economy.

Civil disobedience in the USA may be dangerous and destabilising, but it may be less of a threat to national and global stability than the continuation of the Trump regime. Only Americans can fix this increasingly urgent and destructive problem.

The rest of the world politely pointing out to Americans that their country has a dangerous and destructive government, and that they need to do something about it for their own sakes and for ours might help. Encouraging our own governments to play a part in this process, as some of the U.S.’s traditional European allies are beginning to do, also might help.

Given that Australia’s leaders have spent the last 80 years becoming America’s trusted ally, whose views are apparently always taken seriously in Washington, it would be unfortunate if the U.S. became the sort of authoritarian power many analysts fear. Perhaps this is Australia’s chance to exercise some of that influence we’re always hearing about.

That's one revolutionary idea we should all be able to get behind.

Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/what-uk-labours-crisis-means-for-australia,20872?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/what-uk-labours-crisis-means-for-australia,20872?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

The lesson from London is not that Albanese is Starmer. It is that a large mandate without a clear governing purpose is a wasting asset, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

BRITAIN'S GOVERNING PARTY polls at 17 per cent. Its Prime Minister records the worst approval ratings since polling began in 1978. The populist Right is projected to win the next election with a three-figure parliamentary majority. If this is a Left-wing coup, the revolutionaries appear to be governing as though they owe an apology for existing.

Australian readers should pay close attention — not because the same fate awaits Canberra, but because the consequences of British collapse are already arriving on our doorstep.

The accusation that UK Labour’s return to power constitutes a creeping ideological seizure of the state has emotional force and no evidentiary basis. What it obscures is more dangerous than what it asserts. Britain has not been captured by the Left. It has been paralysed by a government that won a 172-seat majority and then could not decide what it was for.

The numbers are damning. Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s populist vehicle, has led every published poll since April 2025. Morin in Common's January 2026 MRP poll projected Reform winning 381 seats with a majority of 112, while Labour would collapse to 85 — a loss of 326 from its July 2024 landslide.

A separate Electoral Calculus projection put Reform at 335 seats, with Labour falling to sixth place behind the Greens and the SNP. The left-of-centre bloc — Labour, Greens, and Liberal Democrats combined — musters roughly 195 projected seats. Reform alone commands over 300. The Centre has not been captured. It has been hollowed out.

The Starmer Government’s record explains why. Labour’s £28 billion (AU$54 billion) Green Prosperity Plan was abandoned before it could be tested. The agricultural inheritance tax was hastily revised from £1 million to £2.5 million (AU$4.3 million). Winter fuel payments were cut for pensioners, then became an albatross. Chancellor Rachel Reeves reportedly prepared a manifesto-breaking income tax rise before scrapping it under pressure from her own backbenchers.

In financial economics, we describe this through real options theory: a large majority is a portfolio of options – legislative capacity, political capital, agenda-setting power – whose value decays over time. Every U-turn accelerates the decay. The May 2026 Election will function as a mark-to-market event and the portfolio is deep out of the money.

The Mandelson-Epstein affair reveals something worse than poor judgment. Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington despite a vetting process that flagged his post-conviction relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as a “general reputational risk” and a National Security Adviser who reportedly called the process “weirdly rushed”.

Mandelson was sacked in September 2025, arrested in February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and has since resigned from both the Labour Party and the House of Lords. What the affair exposed was not radicalism but dependency — a government still tethered to New Labour’s factional networks at the very moment it needed the credibility to govern on its own terms. That credibility is now spent.

For Australia, this is not spectacle. It is a strategic problem. AUKUS – the trilateral pact that underwrites our submarine deterrent and Indo-Pacific posture – depends on Britain as a functioning pillar. When HMS Anson was pulled early from HMAS Stirling this month, almost certainly redeployed as the Strait of Hormuz closed under Operation Epic Fury, it demonstrated a reality that Canberra has been slow to internalise: Britain cannot serve two strategic masters simultaneously.

A Royal Navy stretched to breaking point by a Middle Eastern crisis it did not choose cannot also sustain the rotational submarine commitments that AUKUS requires. Every month of British political paralysis is a month in which Australia’s most consequential defence partnership loses credibility.

The parallel closer to home deserves honest examination.

Anthony Albanese won 94 seats last May — the largest haul in Labor’s history, on 55 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote. Like Starmer in 2024, he received a mandate of historic proportions. Unlike Starmer, he has – so far – avoided the catastrophic policy reversals and institutional scandals that have gutted British Labour. But the structural similarities are uncomfortable.

Albanese’s first term was widely described as cautious and the second term’s policy ambition remains unclear. His net approval has deteriorated since the 2025 Election. One Nation has surged to 22 per cent in Newspoll, pushing the Coalition to third — an echo of Reform’s fragmentation of the British Right.

The lesson from London is not that Albanese is Starmer. It is that a large mandate without a clear governing purpose is a wasting asset. The time decay is identical whether you are in Westminster or Canberra.

And the geopolitical exposure is shared. Pine Gap’s 45 satellite radomes continue feeding real-time intelligence into the Iran campaign. Australian submariners are embedded in U.S. vessels. Canberra has deployed an E-7A Wedgetail and personnel to Al Minhad. We import 90 per cent of our refined fuel and hold just 36 days of strategic reserves against an IEA benchmark of 90. A one-month Hormuz disruption lifts the Australian CPI by a percentage point; a three-month closure spikes it by 1.5 points and shaves half a point off GDP.

These are the fat-tailed risks that neither Starmer nor Albanese has priced into their governing models — because both have operated as though the geopolitical environment would remain benign long enough for cautious domestic management to deliver results. It has not.

Nearly 70 per cent of the British public now tell Ipsos that Britain is broken. They are not describing a Left-wing coup. They are describing a vacuum. The question for Australia is whether we recognise the pattern before it becomes our own: a mandate mistaken for permission to defer, alliances assumed to be self-sustaining and a strategic environment that punishes indecision with compound interest.

The electorate voted for change in July 2024 in Britain and May 2025 in Australia. In neither case did they vote for the absence of everything that preceded it.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]>

The lesson from London is not that Albanese is Starmer. It is that a large mandate without a clear governing purpose is a wasting asset, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

BRITAIN'S GOVERNING PARTY polls at 17 per cent. Its Prime Minister records the worst approval ratings since polling began in 1978. The populist Right is projected to win the next election with a three-figure parliamentary majority. If this is a Left-wing coup, the revolutionaries appear to be governing as though they owe an apology for existing.

Australian readers should pay close attention — not because the same fate awaits Canberra, but because the consequences of British collapse are already arriving on our doorstep.

The accusation that UK Labour’s return to power constitutes a creeping ideological seizure of the state has emotional force and no evidentiary basis. What it obscures is more dangerous than what it asserts. Britain has not been captured by the Left. It has been paralysed by a government that won a 172-seat majority and then could not decide what it was for.

The numbers are damning. Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s populist vehicle, has led every published poll since April 2025. Morin in Common's January 2026 MRP poll projected Reform winning 381 seats with a majority of 112, while Labour would collapse to 85 — a loss of 326 from its July 2024 landslide.

A separate Electoral Calculus projection put Reform at 335 seats, with Labour falling to sixth place behind the Greens and the SNP. The left-of-centre bloc — Labour, Greens, and Liberal Democrats combined — musters roughly 195 projected seats. Reform alone commands over 300. The Centre has not been captured. It has been hollowed out.

The Starmer Government’s record explains why. Labour’s £28 billion (AU$54 billion) Green Prosperity Plan was abandoned before it could be tested. The agricultural inheritance tax was hastily revised from £1 million to £2.5 million (AU$4.3 million). Winter fuel payments were cut for pensioners, then became an albatross. Chancellor Rachel Reeves reportedly prepared a manifesto-breaking income tax rise before scrapping it under pressure from her own backbenchers.

In financial economics, we describe this through real options theory: a large majority is a portfolio of options – legislative capacity, political capital, agenda-setting power – whose value decays over time. Every U-turn accelerates the decay. The May 2026 Election will function as a mark-to-market event and the portfolio is deep out of the money.

The Mandelson-Epstein affair reveals something worse than poor judgment. Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington despite a vetting process that flagged his post-conviction relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as a “general reputational risk” and a National Security Adviser who reportedly called the process “weirdly rushed”.

Mandelson was sacked in September 2025, arrested in February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and has since resigned from both the Labour Party and the House of Lords. What the affair exposed was not radicalism but dependency — a government still tethered to New Labour’s factional networks at the very moment it needed the credibility to govern on its own terms. That credibility is now spent.

For Australia, this is not spectacle. It is a strategic problem. AUKUS – the trilateral pact that underwrites our submarine deterrent and Indo-Pacific posture – depends on Britain as a functioning pillar. When HMS Anson was pulled early from HMAS Stirling this month, almost certainly redeployed as the Strait of Hormuz closed under Operation Epic Fury, it demonstrated a reality that Canberra has been slow to internalise: Britain cannot serve two strategic masters simultaneously.

A Royal Navy stretched to breaking point by a Middle Eastern crisis it did not choose cannot also sustain the rotational submarine commitments that AUKUS requires. Every month of British political paralysis is a month in which Australia’s most consequential defence partnership loses credibility.

The parallel closer to home deserves honest examination.

Anthony Albanese won 94 seats last May — the largest haul in Labor’s history, on 55 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote. Like Starmer in 2024, he received a mandate of historic proportions. Unlike Starmer, he has – so far – avoided the catastrophic policy reversals and institutional scandals that have gutted British Labour. But the structural similarities are uncomfortable.

Albanese’s first term was widely described as cautious and the second term’s policy ambition remains unclear. His net approval has deteriorated since the 2025 Election. One Nation has surged to 22 per cent in Newspoll, pushing the Coalition to third — an echo of Reform’s fragmentation of the British Right.

The lesson from London is not that Albanese is Starmer. It is that a large mandate without a clear governing purpose is a wasting asset. The time decay is identical whether you are in Westminster or Canberra.

And the geopolitical exposure is shared. Pine Gap’s 45 satellite radomes continue feeding real-time intelligence into the Iran campaign. Australian submariners are embedded in U.S. vessels. Canberra has deployed an E-7A Wedgetail and personnel to Al Minhad. We import 90 per cent of our refined fuel and hold just 36 days of strategic reserves against an IEA benchmark of 90. A one-month Hormuz disruption lifts the Australian CPI by a percentage point; a three-month closure spikes it by 1.5 points and shaves half a point off GDP.

These are the fat-tailed risks that neither Starmer nor Albanese has priced into their governing models — because both have operated as though the geopolitical environment would remain benign long enough for cautious domestic management to deliver results. It has not.

Nearly 70 per cent of the British public now tell Ipsos that Britain is broken. They are not describing a Left-wing coup. They are describing a vacuum. The question for Australia is whether we recognise the pattern before it becomes our own: a mandate mistaken for permission to defer, alliances assumed to be self-sustaining and a strategic environment that punishes indecision with compound interest.

The electorate voted for change in July 2024 in Britain and May 2025 in Australia. In neither case did they vote for the absence of everything that preceded it.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/armed-with-ai-epicflows-new-portfolio-optimiser-enters-trials-with-the-dutch-,20873?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/about-ia/sponsored-display/armed-with-ai-epicflows-new-portfolio-optimiser-enters-trials-with-the-dutch-,20873?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

As geopolitical pressure intensifies across Europe, defence organisations are under growing pressure to deliver complex programmes faster and more efficiently. Responding to this challenge, Epicflow has begun trialling its new AI-powered Portfolio Optimiser with the Dutch Ministry of Defence, aiming to improve planning, prioritisation, and on-time delivery of critical defence initiatives.

Despite defenсe budgets rising, programme leaders are still struggling with timely delivery. At Epicflow, the Dutch defence project management software company founded by researchers and experienced project management practitioners, they know the reason. “The real bottleneck faced by enterprises is no longer funding, but limited availability of skilled resources,” explains Dr. Ir. Albert Ponsteen, Epicflow’s co-founder.  

This observation became the foundation for developing the Epicflow AI Portfolio Optimiser (EPO), the recently released AI-powered functionality of Epicflow, focused on prioritising, and planning work based on actual resource constraints and projected business value. EPO is designed to help enterprises align strategy with real capacity and make data-driven decisions about where to focus their limited resources. Its central idea isn’t about doing more, but about getting more value from what companies already have.

“There should be a shift in thinking, from “doing it all” to doing what is truly important,” notes Ben Rawson, portfolio management professional and strategic partner of Epicflow. “EPO helps leaders clearly identify which projects deserve investment and ensures that every hour contributes to measurable value.”

To test this approach in practice, Epicflow partnered with a major defence programme run by the Dutch Ministry of Defence. The collaboration involved an experiment within a $1B multi-year programme that faced huge delays across numerous initiatives. Epicflow was applied on the first batch of projects to test whether its portfolio optimisation approach could improve outcomes in this highly complex environment. 

The first results were remarkable. Project lead times were reduced by more than 30 per cent and due date performance improved by up to 300 per cent — all without increasing headcount. The experiment was recognised by the MOD as a huge success: their highest-value projects could be delivered more than 400 days earlier than expected before. 

Reflecting on the experiment, Dr. Ponsteen states: 

“We didn't push teams to work harder. We changed how work was prioritised. When you align portfolio decisions with business value and actual resource constraints, overload disappears and performance improves dramatically. So, the real question in portfolio management isn’t how much budget you have. It’s whether your limited resources are focused on projects that deliver the greatest value.”

In the current global context, the ability to deliver faster using existing resources becomes strategically important for defence organisations and other mission-critical industries. Value-driven and resource-centric prioritisation becomes the key to improved performance and faster delivery, with EPO providing structured support to implement this approach. 

About Epicflow

Epicflow is a project resource management software company founded in 2017 and headquartered in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The company develops enterprise project and portfolio management solutions designed for organizations operating in resource-constrained environments. Epicflow’s platform supports portfolio planning, execution, and resource management across multiple concurrent projects.

]]>

As geopolitical pressure intensifies across Europe, defence organisations are under growing pressure to deliver complex programmes faster and more efficiently. Responding to this challenge, Epicflow has begun trialling its new AI-powered Portfolio Optimiser with the Dutch Ministry of Defence, aiming to improve planning, prioritisation, and on-time delivery of critical defence initiatives.

Despite defenсe budgets rising, programme leaders are still struggling with timely delivery. At Epicflow, the Dutch defence project management software company founded by researchers and experienced project management practitioners, they know the reason. “The real bottleneck faced by enterprises is no longer funding, but limited availability of skilled resources,” explains Dr. Ir. Albert Ponsteen, Epicflow’s co-founder.  

This observation became the foundation for developing the Epicflow AI Portfolio Optimiser (EPO), the recently released AI-powered functionality of Epicflow, focused on prioritising, and planning work based on actual resource constraints and projected business value. EPO is designed to help enterprises align strategy with real capacity and make data-driven decisions about where to focus their limited resources. Its central idea isn’t about doing more, but about getting more value from what companies already have.

“There should be a shift in thinking, from “doing it all” to doing what is truly important,” notes Ben Rawson, portfolio management professional and strategic partner of Epicflow. “EPO helps leaders clearly identify which projects deserve investment and ensures that every hour contributes to measurable value.”

To test this approach in practice, Epicflow partnered with a major defence programme run by the Dutch Ministry of Defence. The collaboration involved an experiment within a $1B multi-year programme that faced huge delays across numerous initiatives. Epicflow was applied on the first batch of projects to test whether its portfolio optimisation approach could improve outcomes in this highly complex environment. 

The first results were remarkable. Project lead times were reduced by more than 30 per cent and due date performance improved by up to 300 per cent — all without increasing headcount. The experiment was recognised by the MOD as a huge success: their highest-value projects could be delivered more than 400 days earlier than expected before. 

Reflecting on the experiment, Dr. Ponsteen states: 

“We didn't push teams to work harder. We changed how work was prioritised. When you align portfolio decisions with business value and actual resource constraints, overload disappears and performance improves dramatically. So, the real question in portfolio management isn’t how much budget you have. It’s whether your limited resources are focused on projects that deliver the greatest value.”

In the current global context, the ability to deliver faster using existing resources becomes strategically important for defence organisations and other mission-critical industries. Value-driven and resource-centric prioritisation becomes the key to improved performance and faster delivery, with EPO providing structured support to implement this approach. 

About Epicflow

Epicflow is a project resource management software company founded in 2017 and headquartered in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The company develops enterprise project and portfolio management solutions designed for organizations operating in resource-constrained environments. Epicflow’s platform supports portfolio planning, execution, and resource management across multiple concurrent projects.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/stiff-penalties-for-workplace-deaths-are-doing-the-job,20870?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/stiff-penalties-for-workplace-deaths-are-doing-the-job,20870?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

Controversial initiatives to curb worker fatalities appear to be effective. Alan Austin reports.

A YOUNG SUBCONTRACTOR was crushed and killed on a factory driveway in suburban Melbourne in 2021, when a forklift carrying a precarious elevated load suddenly tipped over.

Victoria’s Public Prosecutor then charged the company director with industrial manslaughter, a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison. This law came into effect in 2020, despite objections from the State Opposition and employer groups.

Because of his early guilty plea, genuine remorse and good record, the director avoided the gaol time prosecutors had sought. Instead, he was sentenced to 200 hours of community work, compulsory forklift operation training and fined $1.3 million.

"Not enough!" declared the prosecution, who lodged an appeal. When this was heard last July, the Court of Appeal agreed and increased the penalty to $3 million.

Whether or not time in prison might have served better to discourage repetition of such negligence, the message appears to have gotten through.

Company directors now understand they face serious personal legal risk for workplace deaths. Outcomes suggest they are taking the necessary precautions.

Fatalities steadily declining

The bad old days of Australia accepting as normal that 25 workers in every million across the nation are killed each year are gone. That was the regime through the Howard era — at the end of which, in 2007, 310 employees lost their lives. That’s according to comprehensive data provided by Safe Work Australia.

Workplace safety improved rapidly through the Rudd years, as a result of safety education, tighter regulations and stiffer penalties for breaches. From the excessive 2007 level, fatalities tumbled in every Labor year bar one, hitting fresh all-time lows each time. By 2013, the number was 203, less than two-thirds of the Coalition’s final tally. See chart below.

Tragically for Australia’s workers, the Coalition was re-elected in 2013 and the trajectory plateaued. The incoming Government under Tony Abbott sidelined workplace safety, with him famously declaring that “a more productive economy is a less-regulated one”.
Workers killed jumped to 212 in 2015, then fluctuated until reaching 195 in 2022, only two fewer than in Abbott’s first year in 2014.

The average deaths over the last four years under Scott Morrison were 190. That is exactly the average over the three calendar years since Labor regained office in 2022, although the trend has now shifted in the right direction.

Rates show greater improvement

While the above chart shows the raw numbers of fatalities declining very gradually, we must also examine deaths per million workers, given that the workforce has expanded from just over ten million in 2004 to 15.4 million today.

This reveals a more encouraging decline. (See chart below).

The Howard years ended with more than 28 deaths per million, a level fortuitously now abandoned forever. The rate declined significantly in every year of the Rudd/Gillard period, except 2012, and ended at 16.7 fatalities per million workers. The rate then fluctuated through the Coalition period, with a more gradual decline, ending at 13.8 deaths per million in 2022.

The trajectory since Labor returned in 2022 has been steadily downwards.

Penalties imposed

Industrial laws enforced in 2023 resulted in 293 successful prosecutions, 45 related to fatalities. Fines collected totalled $39.95 million. That’s up from $32.24 million in penalties in 2022.

Successful prosecutions in 2024 increased to 317 with fines totalling $37.08 million. National data is not yet available for 2025, but we know Victoria alone successfully prosecuted 137 cases and collected $17.4 million in penalties. Of those, 17 related to fatalities.

Measures to cut the toll

Besides stiffer penalties, recent federal and state initiatives include better education, more detailed data provided by Safe Work Australia, and an expanded list of events reportable to regulators.

Employers must now notify authorities of incidents of personal violence, work‑related suicides and attempted suicides and absences of 15+ consecutive days due to injury or illness.

Psychosocial risks, such as bullying, fatigue, stress and personal violence are now formally recognized as health and safety issues in most states. Directors must respond to psychological hazards with the same rigor as the dangers from toppling forklifts.

All-time low construction death rate

The industry with the worst performance under the Coalition was the construction sector, as IA has reported frequently since 2015.

This is no surprise given Tony Abbott’s enthusiastic backing for a gung-ho construction sector:

"I absolutely hope that in four or five years’ time, people will say ‘Yes, that Tony Abbott, he did all sorts of things but, by God, he was an infrastructure Prime Minister. He was a builder’.”

If fact, Abbott built very little. But, by God, he increased construction deaths. See chart below.

Construction workers killed soared after Abbott’s election, from 6.7 per $100 billion of building activity in 2013 to 10.6 in 2014. This leapt again in 2015 and 2016, to an appalling 13.5 deaths per $100 billion of output. This peaked higher still in 2020 at 13.7, more than double Labor’s final level in 2013.

The 2023 surge appears aberrant, given the much lower rates in the two years before and after. We know this was the result of exceptionally high driving accidents and falls from heights, although why these occurred that year is unclear.

The last two years show a trend in the right direction, with a surprisingly positive result last year — down to an all-time low of six fatalities relative to work done.

It is possible 2025 was aberrantly low. We will see in due course if that number is revised in coming months and if the improvement continues in the years ahead.

This requires ongoing attention of lawmakers, Safe Work Australia, the courts, all corporate managers and all workers — especially operators of those bloody forklifts.

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001 and Bluesky @alanaustin.bsky.social.

]]>

Controversial initiatives to curb worker fatalities appear to be effective. Alan Austin reports.

A YOUNG SUBCONTRACTOR was crushed and killed on a factory driveway in suburban Melbourne in 2021, when a forklift carrying a precarious elevated load suddenly tipped over.

Victoria’s Public Prosecutor then charged the company director with industrial manslaughter, a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison. This law came into effect in 2020, despite objections from the State Opposition and employer groups.

Because of his early guilty plea, genuine remorse and good record, the director avoided the gaol time prosecutors had sought. Instead, he was sentenced to 200 hours of community work, compulsory forklift operation training and fined $1.3 million.

"Not enough!" declared the prosecution, who lodged an appeal. When this was heard last July, the Court of Appeal agreed and increased the penalty to $3 million.

Whether or not time in prison might have served better to discourage repetition of such negligence, the message appears to have gotten through.

Company directors now understand they face serious personal legal risk for workplace deaths. Outcomes suggest they are taking the necessary precautions.

Fatalities steadily declining

The bad old days of Australia accepting as normal that 25 workers in every million across the nation are killed each year are gone. That was the regime through the Howard era — at the end of which, in 2007, 310 employees lost their lives. That’s according to comprehensive data provided by Safe Work Australia.

Workplace safety improved rapidly through the Rudd years, as a result of safety education, tighter regulations and stiffer penalties for breaches. From the excessive 2007 level, fatalities tumbled in every Labor year bar one, hitting fresh all-time lows each time. By 2013, the number was 203, less than two-thirds of the Coalition’s final tally. See chart below.

Tragically for Australia’s workers, the Coalition was re-elected in 2013 and the trajectory plateaued. The incoming Government under Tony Abbott sidelined workplace safety, with him famously declaring that “a more productive economy is a less-regulated one”.
Workers killed jumped to 212 in 2015, then fluctuated until reaching 195 in 2022, only two fewer than in Abbott’s first year in 2014.

The average deaths over the last four years under Scott Morrison were 190. That is exactly the average over the three calendar years since Labor regained office in 2022, although the trend has now shifted in the right direction.

Rates show greater improvement

While the above chart shows the raw numbers of fatalities declining very gradually, we must also examine deaths per million workers, given that the workforce has expanded from just over ten million in 2004 to 15.4 million today.

This reveals a more encouraging decline. (See chart below).

The Howard years ended with more than 28 deaths per million, a level fortuitously now abandoned forever. The rate declined significantly in every year of the Rudd/Gillard period, except 2012, and ended at 16.7 fatalities per million workers. The rate then fluctuated through the Coalition period, with a more gradual decline, ending at 13.8 deaths per million in 2022.

The trajectory since Labor returned in 2022 has been steadily downwards.

Penalties imposed

Industrial laws enforced in 2023 resulted in 293 successful prosecutions, 45 related to fatalities. Fines collected totalled $39.95 million. That’s up from $32.24 million in penalties in 2022.

Successful prosecutions in 2024 increased to 317 with fines totalling $37.08 million. National data is not yet available for 2025, but we know Victoria alone successfully prosecuted 137 cases and collected $17.4 million in penalties. Of those, 17 related to fatalities.

Measures to cut the toll

Besides stiffer penalties, recent federal and state initiatives include better education, more detailed data provided by Safe Work Australia, and an expanded list of events reportable to regulators.

Employers must now notify authorities of incidents of personal violence, work‑related suicides and attempted suicides and absences of 15+ consecutive days due to injury or illness.

Psychosocial risks, such as bullying, fatigue, stress and personal violence are now formally recognized as health and safety issues in most states. Directors must respond to psychological hazards with the same rigor as the dangers from toppling forklifts.

All-time low construction death rate

The industry with the worst performance under the Coalition was the construction sector, as IA has reported frequently since 2015.

This is no surprise given Tony Abbott’s enthusiastic backing for a gung-ho construction sector:

"I absolutely hope that in four or five years’ time, people will say ‘Yes, that Tony Abbott, he did all sorts of things but, by God, he was an infrastructure Prime Minister. He was a builder’.”

If fact, Abbott built very little. But, by God, he increased construction deaths. See chart below.

Construction workers killed soared after Abbott’s election, from 6.7 per $100 billion of building activity in 2013 to 10.6 in 2014. This leapt again in 2015 and 2016, to an appalling 13.5 deaths per $100 billion of output. This peaked higher still in 2020 at 13.7, more than double Labor’s final level in 2013.

The 2023 surge appears aberrant, given the much lower rates in the two years before and after. We know this was the result of exceptionally high driving accidents and falls from heights, although why these occurred that year is unclear.

The last two years show a trend in the right direction, with a surprisingly positive result last year — down to an all-time low of six fatalities relative to work done.

It is possible 2025 was aberrantly low. We will see in due course if that number is revised in coming months and if the improvement continues in the years ahead.

This requires ongoing attention of lawmakers, Safe Work Australia, the courts, all corporate managers and all workers — especially operators of those bloody forklifts.

Alan Austin is an Independent Australia columnist and freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @alanaustin001 and Bluesky @alanaustin.bsky.social.

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/grow-up-or-blow-up-humanitys-final-exam,20871?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Mon, 30 Mar 2026 10:30:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/grow-up-or-blow-up-humanitys-final-exam,20871?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

For centuries, thinkers and philosophers have issued a consistent, chilling warning: the tools of our own creation could one day lead to our annihilation.

From the lamentations of Lao Tzu against the 'tools of fear', to the stark atomic-age pronouncements of Albert Einstein that 'a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive', the message has been clear.

Today, as we stand on the precipice of cascading global crises, that ancient warning has morphed into a final, binary choice for our species: grow up, or blow up.

The daily news reads like a charge sheet against our collective maturity. As of early March 2026, the world is not stumbling towards a crisis, it is engulfed in a multi-front inferno. A new war between the United States, Israel, and Iran claimed over 1,300 lives in its first week, triggering a major humanitarian emergency and displacing hundreds of thousands. In Lebanon, Israeli strikes have added nearly 300 more to the death toll, while in Gaza, a region already scarred by unimaginable loss, the spectre of genocide looms as borders close and aid dwindles.

This is the reality of the "blow up" scenario. It is not an abstract threat, but a present and escalating reality, measured in the cold calculus of daily casualty reports from places as diverse as South Sudan, Ukraine, and Afghanistan. The machinery of war, oiled by a staggering $2.7 trillion in global military spending, is functioning with brutal efficiency. This sum, a monument to our greatest misallocation of resources, could be used to address the root causes of conflict: poverty, climate change, and inequality. Instead, it fuels a cycle of destruction that profits a few while imperilling all.

The current state of affairs is not an accident, but the result of a series of deliberate choices. We have chosen to treat our problems as security threats, addressing the symptoms of a planet in distress rather than the disease.

We build detention centres to discourage refugees, even as our own military-industrial complexes are among the largest polluters, accelerating the very disasters that create displacement. We have allowed the architecture of global peace, the United Nations Security Council, to be paralysed by the veto power of the world's largest arms exporters — a fatal conflict of interest that ensures inaction in the face of atrocity.

This is where the “grow up” imperative comes in. It is the radical, yet entirely necessary, demand that we transcend the impulses that have led us to this point. Growing up means recognising that war is the enemy, not the manufactured threats used to justify its perpetuation. It means understanding, as writers like John Horgan have argued, that war is a cultural invention, not an immutable part of human nature. Just as we abolished slavery and duelling, we can choose to abolish organized violence.

What does this choice look like in practice? It looks like redirecting the $2.7 trillion from instruments of death to instruments of life, by funding the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, investing in climate adaptation, and strengthening global health systems. It looks like dismantling the military-industrial complex that has captured our democracies — a system where arms industry lobbyists outnumber diplomats, and the revolving door between government and defence contractors never stops spinning.

It means reforming the U.N. Security Council to remove the paralysing veto power that serves the interests of the powerful over the needs of the vulnerable. It means following the lead of nations like Costa Rica, which constitutionally abolished its military and has reaped a peace dividend in education and healthcare.

The data from March 2026 is not just a snapshot of a world in crisis — it is a final exam for Homo sapiens. The question before us is whether our technological prowess has outstripped our wisdom. The Fermi Paradox asks, "Where is everybody?"

One chillingly plausible answer is that intelligent civilizations develop the capacity for self-destruction and fail to survive. We are staring that failure in the face.

To choose to grow up is to choose a different path. It is to prioritise diplomacy, demilitarisation, and investment in human and planetary well-being. It is the hardest, most urgent task we have ever faced.

But the alternative – to continue our current trajectory – is not a sustainable option. That is a guarantee of blowing up, leaving behind nothing but a silent, radioactive testament to a species that was clever enough to reach for the stars, but not wise enough to secure its own home.

David Higginbottom is a member of the coordinating committee of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) and coordinator of the Make Peace A Priority campaign (mpap.au).

]]>

For centuries, thinkers and philosophers have issued a consistent, chilling warning: the tools of our own creation could one day lead to our annihilation.

From the lamentations of Lao Tzu against the 'tools of fear', to the stark atomic-age pronouncements of Albert Einstein that 'a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive', the message has been clear.

Today, as we stand on the precipice of cascading global crises, that ancient warning has morphed into a final, binary choice for our species: grow up, or blow up.

The daily news reads like a charge sheet against our collective maturity. As of early March 2026, the world is not stumbling towards a crisis, it is engulfed in a multi-front inferno. A new war between the United States, Israel, and Iran claimed over 1,300 lives in its first week, triggering a major humanitarian emergency and displacing hundreds of thousands. In Lebanon, Israeli strikes have added nearly 300 more to the death toll, while in Gaza, a region already scarred by unimaginable loss, the spectre of genocide looms as borders close and aid dwindles.

This is the reality of the "blow up" scenario. It is not an abstract threat, but a present and escalating reality, measured in the cold calculus of daily casualty reports from places as diverse as South Sudan, Ukraine, and Afghanistan. The machinery of war, oiled by a staggering $2.7 trillion in global military spending, is functioning with brutal efficiency. This sum, a monument to our greatest misallocation of resources, could be used to address the root causes of conflict: poverty, climate change, and inequality. Instead, it fuels a cycle of destruction that profits a few while imperilling all.

The current state of affairs is not an accident, but the result of a series of deliberate choices. We have chosen to treat our problems as security threats, addressing the symptoms of a planet in distress rather than the disease.

We build detention centres to discourage refugees, even as our own military-industrial complexes are among the largest polluters, accelerating the very disasters that create displacement. We have allowed the architecture of global peace, the United Nations Security Council, to be paralysed by the veto power of the world's largest arms exporters — a fatal conflict of interest that ensures inaction in the face of atrocity.

This is where the “grow up” imperative comes in. It is the radical, yet entirely necessary, demand that we transcend the impulses that have led us to this point. Growing up means recognising that war is the enemy, not the manufactured threats used to justify its perpetuation. It means understanding, as writers like John Horgan have argued, that war is a cultural invention, not an immutable part of human nature. Just as we abolished slavery and duelling, we can choose to abolish organized violence.

What does this choice look like in practice? It looks like redirecting the $2.7 trillion from instruments of death to instruments of life, by funding the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, investing in climate adaptation, and strengthening global health systems. It looks like dismantling the military-industrial complex that has captured our democracies — a system where arms industry lobbyists outnumber diplomats, and the revolving door between government and defence contractors never stops spinning.

It means reforming the U.N. Security Council to remove the paralysing veto power that serves the interests of the powerful over the needs of the vulnerable. It means following the lead of nations like Costa Rica, which constitutionally abolished its military and has reaped a peace dividend in education and healthcare.

The data from March 2026 is not just a snapshot of a world in crisis — it is a final exam for Homo sapiens. The question before us is whether our technological prowess has outstripped our wisdom. The Fermi Paradox asks, "Where is everybody?"

One chillingly plausible answer is that intelligent civilizations develop the capacity for self-destruction and fail to survive. We are staring that failure in the face.

To choose to grow up is to choose a different path. It is to prioritise diplomacy, demilitarisation, and investment in human and planetary well-being. It is the hardest, most urgent task we have ever faced.

But the alternative – to continue our current trajectory – is not a sustainable option. That is a guarantee of blowing up, leaving behind nothing but a silent, radioactive testament to a species that was clever enough to reach for the stars, but not wise enough to secure its own home.

David Higginbottom is a member of the coordinating committee of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) and coordinator of the Make Peace A Priority campaign (mpap.au).

]]> https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/colour-me-stoked-torquays-chairman-of-the-board,20865?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed Sun, 29 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +1000 https://independentaustralia.net/life/art-display/colour-me-stoked-torquays-chairman-of-the-board,20865?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=IA_Feed

All shapes and sizes — a surfboard fanatic from Torquay proudly displays his lifetime collection. (Photo, circa 2005.)

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]>

All shapes and sizes — a surfboard fanatic from Torquay proudly displays his lifetime collection. (Photo, circa 2005.)

**This photograph is part of an IA series that looks at Australia through the lens of award-winning photojournalist Bill McAuley.**

Bill McAuley's 40-plus-year news career began in 1969 as a cadet photographer at 'The Age' in Melbourne.

He has several published collections, including 'Portraits of the Soul: A lifetime of images with Bill McAuley' and 'Last light on Victoria Dock, 1999'. To see more from Bill, click here.

]]>