Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Palmer, Lecturer in International Law, Griffith University

Just four months ago, Timor-Leste formally became a member of the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN).

This week, the tiny country took an unprecedented step: its judicial authorities appointed a prosecutor to examine the Myanmar military’s responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It’s believed to be the first time an ASEAN state has taken such an action against another member.

The case resulted from the persistence of a victims’ group, the Chin Human Rights Organisation, in pursuing justice for the Chin people, a minority group in Myanmar. In submitting the complaint, the head of the organisation expressed solidarity with Timor-Leste’s own historic efforts to secure justice and independence.

Timor-Leste authorities will now assess whether to bring charges against Myanmar’s military leaders, including junta chief Min Aung Hlaing.

Any prosecutions would be on the basis of “universal jurisdiction”. This is a legal principle that allows domestic courts to hear cases alleging international crimes, regardless of where the crimes occurred, or the nationality of the victims or perpetrators.

Limitations of international courts

This week, a major study of 23 conflicts around the globe said the international legal system designed to protect civilians is at a “breaking point”. Observers are also asking whether the United Nations has any future at all.

It has long been clear that international courts have limited efficacy in prosecuting cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Critics argue the International Criminal Court (ICC) has engaged in selective prosecutions, is too slow and has weak enforcement powers. In the past 20 years, the court has heard 34 cases and issued just 13 convictions.

However, proponents of the court say it has been unfairly maligned and targeted, including by the Trump administration, which imposed sanctions on it last year.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), meanwhile, can hold states accountable for crimes, but not individuals.

Both the ICC and ICJ have investigations underway on Myanmar, but they deal with crimes allegedly committed against the Rohingya minority group before the coup. The ICC case covers incidents committed partly in Bangladesh.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor asked the court’s judges to issue an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlang in November 2024. More than a year later, a decision has yet to be made.

Challenges for domestic courts

In this environment, universal jurisdiction could play a more important role. The United Nations has implicitly recognised this by establishing investigative mechanisms for Syria and Myanmar that gather evidence for future prosecutions in domestic, regional or international courts.

Many states have laws that allow them to prosecute international crimes like torture, genocide or war crimes. What is lacking are resources to fund investigations and transparent criteria or guidelines for how to undertake them.

There are other challenges once cases are underway, too. For one, domestic courts have limited reach. Arrests are difficult, as high-level officials can rely on diplomatic immunity or just avoid the countries where they believe they could face prosecution or extradition.

Prosecuting even lower-level or mid-level perpetrators can be politically awkward. Cases can be expensive and practically difficult, especially when witnesses and evidence are mostly overseas.

The scale and complex nature of these crimes can also be challenging for domestic criminal courts that have limited experience with them.

And if trials go ahead, victims can still find justice elusive, even if the cases have broader strategic or symbolic aims.

Still, there have been successes. Nearly 10 years ago, the former president of Chad, Hissène Habré, was convicted of international crimes in Senegal. The case was tried using universal jurisdiction, driven by civil society networks.

More countries need to step up

This latest initiative in Timor-Leste comes after victim groups have tried many different countries to seek justice for the people of Myanmar. This includes Argentina, where arrest warrants were issued for Myanmar’s leaders, Turkey, and Germany.

In the Asia-Pacific, lawyers have also attempted to bring cases in Indonesia and the Philippines.

While European countries are increasingly using universal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes, other countries have been less keen to take these cases on. For instance, some suggest Canada and Australia could do more to investigate war crimes cases, even though they both have the laws in place to do so.

This just leaves the heavy lifting of prosecutions to others, possibly in courts with more limited resources.

With atrocities continuing to be committed around the world, it’s become more vital than ever for governments to not just back international justice with strong words, but show a real commitment to investigating them at home.

Associate Professor Emma Palmer is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Australian Discovery Early Career Award (project number DE250100597) funded by the Australian Government. The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or Australian Research Council. She is also affiliated with the Association of Mainland Southeast Asia Scholars.

– ref. With international law at a ‘breaking point’, a tiny country goes after Myanmar’s junta on its own – https://theconversation.com/with-international-law-at-a-breaking-point-a-tiny-country-goes-after-myanmars-junta-on-its-own-275089

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/with-international-law-at-a-breaking-point-a-tiny-country-goes-after-myanmars-junta-on-its-own-275089/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eve Vincent, Associate Professor, Anthropology, Macquarie University

Teeth are one of the most visible markers of poverty: structural circumstances that are individually borne.

In an essay for Aeon, US journalist Sarah Smarsh calls them “poor teeth”. She writes:

Often, bad teeth are blamed solely on the habits and choices of their owners, and for the poor therein lies an undue shaming […] Poor teeth […] beget not just shame but more poorness: people with bad teeth have a harder time getting jobs and other opportunities.

In the age of “whitened, straightened, veneered smiles”, the distance between ruined poor teeth and healthy, wealthy teeth is growing.

In 1970s Australia, when Medicare’s predecessor was designed, dental care was left out. Since 2014, the Child Dental Benefits Schedule has enabled children up to 17 years of age to access free dental care at most private clinics if they’re eligible for Medicare and part of a family that receives certain Australian Government payments.

“Dental into Medicare” was a key Greens policy in the 2025 federal election campaign. While this commitment to expanded coverage has stimulated public attention to the question of teeth and poverty in recent years, Grattan Institute researchers stated in late 2024 that “more than two million Australians avoid dental care because of the cost” and that “more than four in ten adults usually wait more than a year before seeing a dental professional”.

Peter Breadon, the institute’s health program director, argues that Australia’s public dental system is “underfunded” and “overwhelmed”.

Read more:
Why isn’t dental included in Medicare? It’s time to change this – here’s how

In July 2025, the ABC reported that around a third of Australians are eligible for free or low-cost public dental services.

These services receive some Commonwealth funding but are provided by state and territory governments. The ABC obtained data showing that while average wait time varies across states and territories, in some cases people have waited years to access dental care.

Left untreated, dental emergencies can result in hospital visits. Or worse.

The United Kingdom’s intensely conditional welfare system imposes a strict “work capability assessment” in a bid to limit access to disability benefits, as does Australia’s through a similar assessment tool.

A recent book memorialising the victims of the UK system includes details of a 57-year-old man found dead in his flat. His relatives discovered the lid of a shoebox in his cupboard holding two large molars and a pair of pliers.

Published in 2014, Linda Tirado’s Hand to Mouth documents her experiences of being poor, working low-wage, unstable jobs and raising her two children with her husband, who shares her precarious position in the US labour market.

In a voice that is direct, sassy, frustrated and funny, Tirado writes about the sex lives of poor people, the costly burdens of poverty (such as late payment fees), her coping mechanisms, the enjoyment she derives from smoking – and about teeth.

The book’s title has a clever double meaning: it’s about how fragile day-by-day existence is but also speaks to the shame surrounding poor teeth, which a hand shielding the mouth attempts to hide.

Tirado’s book began life as a post on an online forum she was reading to unwind after a “particularly gruelling shift” at one of her two jobs. Someone posted the question: “Why do poor people do things that seem so self-destructive?” Tirado’s extended response went viral; eventually, she was approached to write a book.

The late Barbara Ehrenreich supplied a short, generous foreword. She declared herself “waiting for this book” since the publication of her 2001 classic, Nickel and Dimed.

Ehrenreich contrasted her “brief attempt” to subsist on low-wage service and retail jobs with Tirado’s authentic dispatches from impoverished America, lending weight to the valorisation of experiential accounts of poverty over journalistic or scholarly perspectives.

Increasingly, people in poverty have challenged the presumption of academics and community sector advocates to mediate their perspectives, using digital platforms, social media accounts and publishing ventures to communicate their direct experiences, embedded knowledges and political demands directly to audiences. The persistent ethical dilemmas anthropologists and journalists must wrestle with, in terms of representing others’ lives, have become more heightened still.

Ehrenreich declared herself an outsider to the topic of contemporary poverty, Tirado the “real thing”. She concluded in her foreword, “But let me get out of the way now. She can tell this story better than I can.”

This is also the premise of the 2024 Australian collection Povo.

The storytellers in this book found their voices in workshops run across Western Sydney by Sweatshop Literacy Movement, and they write from direct experience.

Teeth are central to one especially compelling contribution.

“Plot twist!”, Victor Guan Yi Zhou’s story, revolves around the narrator’s tooth
gems, which he takes every opportunity to flash.

Got them at a salon… right after Mum and Dad kicked me out. Four of them. Two on the top canines. Two on each incisor. Crystal Swarovski. $150 all up. Each gem will help me manifest my dreams.

In the lead-up to the 2023 Budget, I attended a protest at Albanese’s electoral office. I went in solidarity: the protest was organised by the Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union.

Speakers addressing the protest were on JobSeeker and the Disability Support Pension. They described their struggles to exist on miserly income support payments and shared their frustration about the hope Albanese’s election seemed at first to represent – hope that was by then fading.

Despite some marginal improvements to the JobSeeker payment over the past few years, Australia’s payment levels still remain below the poverty line.

At this protest, I met a JobSeeker recipient who was probably in her late fifties or early sixties. Fraser-era hostility to “dole bludgers” in Australia revolved around a masculine image of workshy youth. Today, researchers describe a JobSeeker recipient as “likely to be older, to be a woman and importantly to have […] a chronic illness or disabilities”.

I chatted with this woman about the two days a week she spends kneeling in the bush, tugging out weeds to fulfil her “mutual obligations”, the signature measure of the conditional welfare state.

I liked her hand-painted sign, “welfare not warefare”, and took a photo.

In the picture, her mouth is clamped tight. I admit I had noticed her chipped teeth.

* This is an edited extract, republished with permission, from Griffith Review 91: On the Money, edited by Carody Culver.

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

– ref. What our teeth reveal about the growing gap between rich and poor – https://theconversation.com/what-our-teeth-reveal-about-the-growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-274519

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/what-our-teeth-reveal-about-the-growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-274519/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher and Sustainable Future Lead, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

Australia is in a deep housing crisis.

The latest National Housing Supply and Affordability Council analysis shows the country is likely to fall more than a quarter-of-a-million homes short of the federal government’s target to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. Its data shows only around 938,000 dwellings are expected to be built in the five-year period, leaving a shortfall of about 262,000.

Another economic estimate suggests demand exceeds supply by 200,000 to 300,000 homes, pushing prices and rents higher as Australians compete for a limited stock of houses.

This gap between demand and supply is why many voices in policy and industry argue traditional ways of building houses are too slow and too expensive.

As Bunnings, Australia’s biggest hardware retailer starts selling tiny homes, it feels like a turning point.

But are backyard pods the answer to a national housing crisis?

Prefab and modular homes in Australia

In response to slow and costly traditional building, many in industry and government have pointed to modern solutions such as modular, prefab or even 3D-printed homes as a key part of the solution.

The idea is to make components or whole sections of homes in dedicated facilities and then assemble them quickly on site.

Recent government analysis shows some of these factory-based homes can be built up to 50% faster than conventional construction, helping speed housing delivery.

The market for prefab and modular buildings is growing in Australia and globally.

The Australian prefab construction sector is valued at A$12.91 billion and is forecast to grow by about 7.88% a year.

However, these methods account for less than 8% of the construction sector.

This is far below countries such as Sweden, where prefab makes up a majority of detached housing.

Read more:
A prefab building revolution can help resolve both the climate and housing crises

Bunnings’ pods: novel but not the solution

Bunnings has recently started selling flat-pack backyard pods that have captured attention.

The pods, small modular units costing from about $26,000, can be assembled in days.

At first glance, this looks like an affordable housing innovation. But the reality is more nuanced.

These pods are fundamentally temporary. Their size, layout and fit-out reflect short-term or secondary use rather than long-term residential living.

Beside this, many pods avoid full planning or building approval in some locations, which is a strong signal they are being treated, legally, as ancillary structures.

They are most useful as offices, studios, guest rooms or extra space but unlikely to be suitable as permanent homes for families.

While the price is eye-catching, it does not include site preparation, ground works, connections for power and water, or any compliance costs, all of which can add substantially to the final price.

Buyers would also need somewhere to put the pod – either owning land, or being able to use someone else’s.

Permits and approvals may be required depending on the location and intended use, further complicating the picture.

Bunnings has not said it is entering the housing market to help solve the national crisis. But its decision to partner with prefab manufacturers comes as major lenders and builders are embracing factory-built housing as part of broader affordability responses, and as analysts note growing consumer interest in faster, lower-cost housing options amid soaring property prices.

Why scale matters

The key to reducing housing costs through industrialised construction is scale.

When production levels are small, factories cannot spread fixed costs over many units.

This results in high prices, even if units can be completed quickly.

In countries where factory-built housing works at scale, companies build the same homes repeatedly. That allows workers to get faster and factories to spread the cost of specialised equipment across many homes. They also have strong supply chains for components and labour.

By comparison, Australia’s sector is still small and most manufacturers produce only a handful of units each year.

Without big volumes and steady demand, off-site building can’t unlock real cost reductions.

That said, Bunnings’ entry is noteworthy.

It shows mainstream retail channels see a business opportunity in modular building products. It may help raise public awareness of alternative construction methods in everyday Australian life.

What are the long-term fixes?

The housing challenge will not be solved by pods.

What is needed is much larger investment into these alternative methods of construction, from both state and federal governments, aligned with international partnerships that bring technology, expertise and industrial scale.

Countries that have succeeded in using factory-built homes at scale have done so through coordinated policy support, strong industrial strategies, workforce training and investment in manufacturing facilities.

Some also combine this with land reform, faster approvals and direct procurement of homes for public needs.

A way forward

Bunnings’ backyard pods may be an interesting new product line.

They can provide extra space and appeal to certain buyers but they are not a long-term housing solution for most Australians.

Bunnings is riding the shift toward factory-built housing but the real shift is bigger: Australia needs to build high-quality homes at scale, not just sell small pods.

Australia needs a dramatic expansion of factory-based building capacity, supported by policy, investment and a clear pathway from small prototypes to large-volume, high-quality homes for communities in need.

Dr Ehsan Noroozinejad has received competitive funding from both national and international organisations. His most recent funding, focused on integrated housing and climate policy, was awarded by the Australian Public Policy Institute (APPI). He is also a member of Standards Australia and ISO committees on prefabricated buildings.

– ref. Bunnings’ backyard pods won’t fix the housing crisis, but they signal a shift – https://theconversation.com/bunnings-backyard-pods-wont-fix-the-housing-crisis-but-they-signal-a-shift-275210

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/bunnings-backyard-pods-wont-fix-the-housing-crisis-but-they-signal-a-shift-275210/

By Layla Bailey-McDowell, RNZ Māori news journalist

Climate change has been a key focus for iwi leaders gathering at Waitangi this week, as coastal communities across New Zealand’s North Island recover from recent severe weather events.

The National Iwi Chairs Forum, representing more than 70 iwi, has been meeting to set priorities for the year ahead, with leaders pointing to the increasing frequency and severity of weather events as a growing concern.

Taane Aruka Te Aho, one of the rangatahi leaders of Te Kāhu Pōkere — the group that travelled to Brazil for COP30 last year — told RNZ that recent weather events across the motu have become a repeating pattern.

“The data shows us that these climate catastrophes are going to keep coming, more frequent, more severe. We’ve seen that in Te Tai Tokerau, in Tauranga Moana, in Te Araroa,” he said.

On behalf of Te Pou Take Āhuarangi, the climate change arm of the National Iwi Chairs Forum, Te Kāhu Pōkere attended the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in November 2025.

They were the first iwi-mandated rangatahi Māori delegation to attend a global COP.

At this year’s forum, the rōpū is presenting its findings and what can be taken back to hapū, iwi and hapori.

‘Key learnings’
“One of the key learnings for me was the importance of data sovereignty and data strategies harnessing environmental data to help us in our climate-based decision-making,” Te Aho said.

In the wake of flooding and storms in the north and east of the country, dozens of marae again opened their doors to displaced whānau, providing shelter, kai and serving as Civil Defence hubs.

Te Aho said those responses showed the strength of Māori-led systems of care.

“It’s paramount that we acknowledge our whānau, but also fund our whānau to keep resourcing, because they are the ones opening up their doors,” he said.

“To ensure not only our mokopuna are thriving, but to ensure our people of today can go back to work, that they’re looked after. Pākeke mai, rangatahi mai, kaumātua mai, kei konei te iwi Māori ki te tautoko i a rātou.”

Last month, the government announced a $1 million Marae Emergency Response Fund to reimburse marae for welfare support provided during the severe weather events, allowing them to “replenish resources and build resilience.”

Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka said at the time, the fund “ensures marae are not left carrying the costs of that mahi”.

‘Building resilience’
“Allowing them to replenish what was used, recover from the immediate response, and continue to build their resilience for future events.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also praised the response from marae.

“Marae have been exceptional in the way they have stepped up to help their communities, providing shelter, food and care to people in need,” he said.

Pou Tangata chairperson Rahui Papa welcomed government support for marae but said long-term planning was needed.

“Back in Cyclone Gabriel, they talked about a 100-year weather event. It’s come up three or four times within the last few years,” he said.

“And I’m picking that, with my weather crystal ball . . .  it’s going to happen time and time again.

“So comprehensive responses have to be employed. Emergency centres at marae have been just absolutely wonderful. I take my hat off to those communities and those marae that have worked together to really find a way to look after the community.”

Climate change key issue
Ngāti Hine chairperson Pita Tipene said climate change was one of the key issues being coordinated at a national level.

“There’s no point in planning for something next week and next month if we’re consigning our planet to the changes that are upon us,” he said.

“We only have to look at the devastation around Te Tai Tokerau, let alone Tauranga Moana and Tai Rāwhiti.”

Tipene also acknowledged the contribution of Te Kāhu Pōkere.

“The young people who went to COP in Brazil and presented back to us said the solutions are in place and led by people. Their messages were very, very clear and the energy and the focus that they bring to those efforts is significant,” he said.

“The National Iwi Chairs Forum comes together because we know we have much more strength together than we are alone. And so coordinating our efforts into areas that will improve the circumstances of our people or protect and enhance the environments of our people, that’s our overall priority.”

Forum members also unanimously backed a legal challenge by Hauraki iwi Ngāti Manuhiri, which is taking the government to the High Court over amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. The changes, made last year, raised the threshold for iwi seeking customary marine title.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/climate-change-a-priority-for-nzs-iwi-leaders-at-waitangi/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Associate Professor, Chair of Linguistics and Director of Language Lab, The University of Western Australia

Claims that artificial intelligence (AI) is on the verge of surpassing human intelligence have become commonplace. According to some commentators, rapid advances in large language models signal an imminent tipping point – often framed as “superintelligence” – that will fundamentally reshape society.

But comparing AI to individual intelligence misses something essential about what human intelligence is. Our intelligence doesn’t operate primarily at the level of isolated individuals. It is social, embodied and collective. Once this is taken seriously, the claim that AI is set to surpass human intelligence becomes far less convincing.

These claims rest on a particular comparison: AI systems are measured against individual human cognitive performance. Can a machine write an essay, pass an exam, diagnose disease, or compose music as well as a person? On these narrow benchmarks, AI appears impressive.

Yet this framing mirrors the limitations of traditional intelligence testing itself: cultural bias, and a reward for familiarity and practice. The rise of AI should therefore prompt more thought about what we mean by intelligence, pushing us to move beyond narrow cognitive metrics, and even beyond popular expansions such as emotional intelligence, toward richer, more contextual definitions.

Intelligence is not individual brilliance

Human cognitive achievements are often attributed to exceptional individuals, but this is misleading. Research in cognitive science and anthropology shows that even our most advanced ideas emerge from collective processes: shared language, cultural transmission, cooperation and cumulative learning across generations.

No scientist, engineer or artist works alone. Scientific discovery depends on shared methods, peer review and institutions. Language itself – arguably humanity’s most powerful cognitive technology – is a collective achievement, refined and modified over thousands of years through social interaction.

Studies of “collective intelligence” consistently show that groups can outperform even their most capable members when diversity of perspectives, communication and coordination are present. This collective capacity is not an optional add-on to human intelligence; it is its foundation.

AI systems, by contrast, do not cooperate, negotiate meaning, form social bonds or engage in shared moral reasoning. They process information in isolation, responding to prompts without awareness, intention or accountability.

Embodiment and social understanding matter

Human intelligence is also embodied. Our thinking is shaped by physical experience, emotion and social interaction. Developmental psychology shows that learning begins in infancy through touch, movement, imitation and shared attention with others. These embodied experiences ground abstract reasoning later in life.

AI lacks this grounding. Language models learn statistical patterns from text, not meaning from lived experience. They do not understand concepts in the way humans do; they approximate linguistic responses based on correlations in data.

This limitation becomes clear in social and ethical contexts. Humans navigate norms, values and emotional cues through interaction and shared cultural understandings we are socialised into. Machines do not.

A narrow slice of humanity

Proponents of AI progress often point to the vast amounts of data used to train modern systems. Yet this data represents a remarkably narrow slice of humanity.

Around 80% of online content is produced in just ten languages. Although more than 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, only a few hundred are consistently represented on the internet – and far fewer in high-quality, machine-readable form.

This matters because language carries culture, values and ways of thinking. Training AI on a largely homogenised data set means embedding the perspectives, assumptions and biases of a relatively small portion of the world’s population.

Human intelligence, by contrast, is defined by diversity. Eight billion people, living in different environments and social systems, contribute to a shared but plural cognitive landscape.

AI does not have access to this richness, nor can it generate it independently. The data on which it is trained stems from a highly biased sample, representing only a percentage of world knowledge.

The limits of scaling

Another issue rarely addressed in claims about “superhuman” AI is data scarcity. Large models improve by ingesting more high-quality data, but this is a finite resource. Researchers have already warned that models are approaching the limits of available human-generated text suitable for training.

One proposed solution is to train AI on data generated by other AI systems. But this risks creating a feedback loop in which errors, biases and simplifications are amplified rather than corrected. Instead of learning from the world, models learn from distorted reflections of themselves.

This is not a path to deeper understanding. It is closer to an echo chamber.

Useful tools, not superior minds

None of this is to deny that AI systems are powerful tools. They can increase efficiency, assist research, support decision-making and expand access to information. Used carefully and with oversight, they can be socially beneficial.

But usefulness is not the same as intelligence in the human sense. AI remains narrow, derivative and dependent on human input, evaluation and correction. It does not form intentions, participate in collective reasoning or contribute to the cultural processes that make human intelligence what it is.

The rapid progress of AI has generated excitement – and, in some quarters, exaggerated expectations. The danger is not that machines will out-think us tomorrow, but that inflated narratives distract from real issues: bias, governance, labour impacts and the responsible integration of these tools into society.

A category error

Comparing AI to human intelligence as though they are competing on the same terms is ultimately a category error. Humans are not isolated information processors. We are social beings whose intelligence emerges from cooperation, diversity and shared meaning.

Until machines can participate in that collective, embodied and ethical dimension of cognition – and there is no evidence they can – the idea that AI will surpass human intelligence remains more hype than insight.

Celeste Rodriguez Louro receives funding from Google.

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

– ref. Why comparisons between AI and human intelligence miss the point – https://theconversation.com/why-comparisons-between-ai-and-human-intelligence-miss-the-point-274621

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/why-comparisons-between-ai-and-human-intelligence-miss-the-point-274621/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Scott, Department of Pro Vice Chancellor (Society), UNSW Sydney; Indigenous Knowledge

The defeat of the Voice referendum was not simply a political loss. It was a political and cultural failure. It exposed, yet again, the profound immaturity of Australia’s political life when it comes to First Nations people. It’s an immaturity that’s shared, in different ways, by governments, by sections of the Australian public and by parts of the Indigenous body politic itself.

For more than a century, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have said the same thing in different ways: we need political voice. Not symbolism. Not better programs designed for us by others. Not endless reviews that gather dust.

We need a recognised, authoritative place within Australia’s democratic system where our voices can be heard, argued over, refined and carried forward. That was the core insight of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The referendum failed. But what followed has been worse. Rather than a period of reflection, listening and recalibration, we have seen a rapid return to the habits that produced failure in the first place: coercion, denial, performative outrage and a retreat into slogans.

The politics of denial

Nowhere is this clearer than in the annual ritual that follows Australia Day.

Every January, Australia re-enacts the same argument. On one side, barely veiled racism and contempt toward Aboriginal people who ask for a respectful acknowledgement of the violence and dispossession that began on 26 January 1788.

On the other, calls for sovereignty and treaty that are often detached from any serious engagement with history, constitutional reality or political strategy.

Neither side is helping.

This article is an edited extract from our chapter in the new book The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy, edited by professors Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis.

Australia Day has become a symbol not of unity, but of political immaturity. Governments insist on a one-size-fits-all celebration in a country that is culturally, historically and politically diverse.

Aboriginal leaders are expected to absorb the pain quietly, while local councils are threatened if they make any changes to celebrations.

Unity also cannot be achieved through symbolic gestures alone. Changing the date, by itself, will not empower our people. Without constitutional reform – without structures that allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect us – we are left arguing over symbols while the underlying power imbalance remains untouched.

That is the tragedy of the post-referendum moment. The failure of the Voice has not produced humility or learning. It has produced entrenchment.

A failed political culture

Non-Indigenous Australia continues to demand unanimity from Aboriginal people — a standard applied to no other group in the country. Disagreement among First Nations people is treated as evidence of illegitimacy rather than as a normal feature of democratic life.

At the same time, parts of Indigenous politics have absorbed the worst habits of the dominant culture. Calls for sovereignty and Treaty are made without articulating what these concepts mean in practice, how they would be achieved, or how they would materially improve the lives of our children.

Culture is invoked rhetorically but not practised — elders ignored, process dismissed, deliberation replaced by performance.

The Regional Dialogues that produced the Uluru Statement were powerful precisely because they involved the crucial work of listening, patience and collaboration. For the first time in more than a decade, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had the time, resources and authority to debate our political future on our own terms.

People disagreed — strongly — but they did so within a shared commitment to process.

The Voice was meant to formalise that space for debate. Its loss has returned us to political fragmentation.

Victoria and the long work of maturity

Against this bleak national picture, Victoria offers a partial — but important — counter example.

Victoria’s treaty and truth-telling processes did not emerge overnight. They followed years of groundwork: community consultation, institutional development, and sustained political commitment. The First Peoples’ Assembly was not imposed; it was built, slowly and imperfectly, through engagement and consent.

Read more:
Victoria’s groundbreaking treaty could reshape Australia’s relationship with First Peoples

This process has not been easy. There are disagreements within Indigenous communities and tensions with government.

But that is precisely the point. Political maturity is not the absence of conflict; it is the capacity to work through conflict without tearing institutions down at the first sign of strain.

Victoria has created political space where Aboriginal people can argue among ourselves, negotiate with government, and begin to develop a more stable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous authority. It’s not a model that can simply be copied nationally. But it demonstrates what is possible when process is taken seriously.

Nationally, we have done the opposite. We rushed a referendum without adequate civic education, without genuine engagement of non-Indigenous Australians, and without listening to Aboriginal leadership when concerns were raised about timing and design.

So, what now?

The temptation after defeat is to retreat into anger, into denial, into purity politics. That temptation must be resisted.

The Voice is still needed. The underlying problem has not changed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remain locked out of meaningful participation in the decisions that shape our lives. Governments continue to manage symptoms rather than address structural causes. Closing the Gap reports record failure with increasing precision, but with diminishing impact.

We need to rebuild political space. That will take time. It will require discipline, humility and a willingness to stay in difficult conversations. It will require non-Indigenous Australians to accept that listening is not weakness, and Indigenous leaders to accept responsibility for process, not just protest.

It will require a political maturity that’s long alluded us. Growing up is the only way to meaningfully improve the lives of First Nations people.

Geoff Scott is the CEO of youth community organisation Just Reinvest. Geoff’s previous positions include: CEO of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council; CEO of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples; CEO of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council; Director General NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs; and Deputy CEO Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Geoff was the Executive Officer to the Referendum Council during the Regional Dialogues and Constitutional Convention and was a key leader throughout the Uluru Dialogue process. He maintains an affiliation with UNSW Sydney.

– ref. The Voice campaign entrenched immature politics. We must do better for First Nations people – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-campaign-entrenched-immature-politics-we-must-do-better-for-first-nations-people-272267

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/the-voice-campaign-entrenched-immature-politics-we-must-do-better-for-first-nations-people-272267/

RNZ Pacific

The Green Party is celebrating the decision to decline plans to mine the Taranaki seabed.

In a draft decision on Thursday, the fast-track approvals panel declined Trans-Tasman Resources’ (TTR) bid to mine 50 million tonnes of seabed a year for 30 years in the South Taranaki Bight.

The panel found there would be a credible risk of harm to Māui dolphins, kororā/little penguin and fairy prion.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was a huge win for the environment and the community.

“We’re absolutely delighted to see the proposal not backed. Even the government’s own panel have come out and said seabed mining has little regional or national benefit and that it would only benefit destructive corporations.

“It’s an incredible win for the environment, but massive props to the local campaigns, local community people, iwi, NGOs, researchers, scientists, fishers, just regular, ordinary people who care, who have said the same thing for many years and have fought hard and long.”

TTR have until February 19 to comment on the decision.

Putting profit before people
Davidson said the mining company would be putting profit before people and the environment if they tried to appeal it.

“How silly would they look. The message is already very clear. This is destructive, overrides local community voices and Te Tiriti, and it’s harmful and dangerous to our environment, which people actually care about.

“They have no support.”

She said the draft decision set a precedent and sent a message to the government that seabed mining was a “dumb idea”.

“Stop putting forward your stupid ideas.”

Davidson said if the government was relying on seabed mining as a way to grow the economy, they were “at a dead end”.

“It’s short-sighted, it’s stupid and it will not work.”

Trans-Tasman Resources said it would now consider its next options.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/green-party-celebrates-decision-to-decline-dead-end-taranaki-seabed-mining/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Symons, Director of Research and Innovation, School of International Studies, Macquarie University

In the 1960s, major oil-producing nations formed a cartel to drive up the price of oil. It worked. For decades, nations in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have agreed to manage supply and raise prices.

Economists have long recognised cartel market power can bring accidental environmental benefits. By driving up prices, demand for polluting products drops. One recent analysis found OPEC’s actions had avoided 67 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions between 1971 and 2021 – equivalent to around three years of global oil consumption.

There’s no OPEC for thermal coal. However, Australia and Indonesia together account for around two thirds of seaborne thermal coal exports. If these two nations began acting in tandem to end the approval of new mines, falling future supply would gradually increase prices.

Our recent research points out that a formal treaty to phase out new thermal coal mine approvals would not only bring climate benefits, but could also benefit national budgets, state royalties and regional jobs.

What we’re proposing blends climate action and self-interest. If restricting coal supply boosted prices, producer states would benefit from increased royalties. Owners and workers at existing mines would benefit from stabilising prices. Finally, the green energy transition would be protected from being undermined by a race to consume ultra-cheap coal.

In the 1970s, OPEC’s engineering of higher oil prices drove a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and triggered intense interest in alternative energy sources such as solar. In our time, solar, wind and energy storage have come of age. A treaty to end new coal mines would make the shift even more appealing.

What would this look like?

If Australia, Indonesia and others formed a new “Organisation for Coal Transition”, the environmental motivation wouldn’t be the only difference with OPEC. For a start, a much high share of oil is traded internationally than coal, as more countries have their own coal supplies.

But major coal importers such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan now depend on seaborne coal. These nations are committed to accelerating climate action overall and have shown signs of structural demand decline already. Stronger coal prices would spur on the change.

The limited number of major coal exporters also creates potential for cooperation. In 2024, Indonesia controlled almost half of global exports, while Australia’s share was nearly 20%. Projections. If South Africa and Colombia joined a treaty alongside Australia and Indonesia, they would together account for 80% of seaborne exports.

What’s more, a thermal coal export treaty would not be easy to undermine. It takes years to get new mines producing, and deepwater ports able to take coal carriers are limited.

Coal importers could reinforce this treaty, pledging to buy from treaty members alone. Japan and South Korea (which account for 20% of global coal imports) are both seeking a predictable energy transition. These countries have shown willingness to pay a green premium and are investors in existing mines.

Australia has no exit strategy

Despite efforts to close domestic coal plants, Australian policymakers have done nothing to limit coal mining and exports.

New South Wales and Queensland state governments still benefit significantly through royalties and regional jobs. Australia’s coal exports, mine expansion approvals and new applications show little sign of slowing.

This is an increasingly risky strategy. With profit margins falling from recent highs and shifting demand in key markets, the thermal coal industry risks a chaotic future for mining towns.

While policymakers are beginning to focus on transition challenges for a small number of coal mines slated to close, they have largely avoided active intervention. After the NSW Productivity Commission and Net Zero Commission recommended limiting new coal mine approvals, Premier Chris Minns described the idea as “irresponsible”.

A ban backed by industry?

For operators of existing mines, agreeing to limit expansion opportunities is a challenging proposition. But the longer-term benefits would be much clearer if it was coordinated with international competitors and supported by buyers.

The coal export sector is showing signs of shifting to a buyers’ market, as long-term demand plateaus and then declines. This puts exporters such as Australia, Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa at a clear disadvantage.

We’ve already seen the fallout of coal’s market-driven decline in the United States’ Appalachian region Repeating the same mistake would undermine regional communities.

If, however, the shift was well managed, it would be a crucial step towards a coordinated just transition.

Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, Indian and Singaporean firms hold major stakes in Australian and Indonesian coal projects. These investors would benefit if existing assets are safeguarded from oversupply. These same investors would likely rally against more forceful interventions to close existing mines or raise mining taxes.

Climate action for pragmatists

Thermal coal is still mined in almost 60 countries. But only 11 have new mines seeking approval. At the same time, key international importers such as China, India, the European Union, Japan and South Korea are actively aiming to cut coal imports. A no-new-mines treaty would meet countries where they are.

What we are proposing is a pragmatic way to advance climate action. Rather than shuttering existing mines and risking blowback, the treaty and its cartel logic would align Australia’s economic self-interest and its climate goals.

At the United Nations climate talks last year, federal Minister for Climate and Energy Chris Bowen supported efforts to map a fossil fuel phase-out. To date, there’s no clarity on how Australia, a fossil fuel export giant, could do that.

Firmly closing the door to new mines alongside other exporters could offer a way to do this while giving policymakers agency.

The approach we’re proposing wouldn’t end coal use. But it would solve several problems at a stroke – and take a big step forward in the energy transition.

Jonathan Symons is an ordinary member of WePlanet NGO.

Chris Wright is the Principal Analyst at CarbonBridge, a small consulting group aiming to bridge critical decarbonisation challenges. He has been involved in work around the UN climate negotiations for over a decade.

– ref. If Australia and Indonesia agreed to end new thermal coal mines, it could drive the green transition. – https://theconversation.com/if-australia-and-indonesia-agreed-to-end-new-thermal-coal-mines-it-could-drive-the-green-transition-271309

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/if-australia-and-indonesia-agreed-to-end-new-thermal-coal-mines-it-could-drive-the-green-transition-271309/