Other young members of the 53-strong team such as ValentinoGuseli (snowboard half-pipe), TessCoady (snowboard big air), JacksonHarvey (moguls) and Indra Brown (freeski half-pipe) also made finals and recorded top-ten results, indicating Australia should continue to be competitive in the future.
What are the reasons for this success?
Increased investment from the federal government has certainly helped.
In July 2024, the federal government announced A$489 million of funding for elite Olympic and Paralympic athletes, coaches and support staff for 2025-2026. This was 50% more than the previous government’s 2021- 2022 high performance funding.
This funding is focused on better support for training, wellbeing, event preparation and access to high-level international competitions.
In 2023 the federal government announced a specific winter sport funding boost of $1.1 million, while in November 2024, a $385 million package was announced for winter and summer sports, with the aim of ensuring Australians have world class pathways and support at all levels.
Aerials and moguls skiers can now practise their jumps on the southern hemisphere’s first year-round ski jumping facility near Brisbane: the Geoff Henke Olympic Winter Training Centre which was completed in 2020.
It greatly reduces the need for these athletes to travel overseas to train.
Australia’s success at these Olympics has pushed winter sport into the mainstream. The big question is what happens next – will more people try them, and will more funding follow?
Possibly – we have seen a similar pattern in Australia before.
Additionally, winter sport has tougher barriers than rugby and soccer because many are expensive, seasonal and coaches and facilities are often located far from where people live.
The Australian ski season doesn’t begin until June, meaning any surge in enthusiasm from the Winter Olympics must persist for months before people can access domestic snow fields.
The Australian Sports Commission estimates about 184,500 Australians (aged 15+) skied or snowboarded at least once in 2024.
So, there is real interest but those numbers are small compared to other popular sports.
Continued funding for athletes and facilities will help ensure greater opportunities for Australians to engage in snow sports.
Currently, non-elite athletes in Australia have limited access to year-round facilities, although some developments are being proposed in major cities.
While recent funding has contributed to our success in Milan Cortina, there are concerns about this funding continuing.
There are calls for further investment in winter sports, while Australian’s chef de mission Alisa Camplin-Warner hopes the winter games won’t be forgotten as Australia increases its focus on the Summer Olympics in Brisbane in 2032.
Australia’s success at the Winter Olympics could inspire other Australians to pursue snow sports. But if Australia wants a “Matildas effect” for winter sports, they must become easier to access for the general population.
This can happen through continued facility development, cheaper learn-to-ski/ride programs, more school links and more pathways through Snow Australia.
Pay equity is back in the spotlight in New Zealand, with an unofficial “people’s select committee” about to report on last year’s legislative changes that overhauled the process and cancelled existing claims.
As we await its findings, it’s a timely moment to ask what problem pay equity settlements are actually meant to solve.
Over the past 50 years, women in Aotearoa have changed where they work in big ways. They have moved in significant numbers into occupations once dominated by men, including law, medicine and management.
In many professions that were overwhelmingly male a generation ago, women are now well represented. But the change has been largely one-way. Men have not moved in comparable numbers into jobs traditionally done by women.
These occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and care and support roles, remain heavily female dominated. That enduring imbalance is important, because it raises the question at the heart of pay equity: have roles historically performed by women been systematically undervalued?
Our research, drawing on five decades of Census data, tracks occupational segregation patterns in New Zealand over time.
While the overall picture has shifted, the persistence of female-dominated occupations tells us why pay equity – and robust settlement processes – still matter.
Progress, but mostly in one direction
Overall, New Zealand’s labour market is less segregated by gender than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Women now work across a much wider range of occupations, and many barriers that once limited their choices have fallen.
This represents real progress. Across the economy, much of this change reflects women moving into jobs once dominated by men. Health provides a clear illustration.
The share of female doctors has risen sharply, from just 12% of GPs in 1976 to 57% in 2023. The reverse shift has been far weaker: men have moved into nursing only marginally and the occupation remains overwhelmingly female, with 89% of registered nurses women in 2023.
An example of a broader trend: Women have become doctors; but male entry into nursing has been minimal.Meehan, Pacheco & Schober (2025)
This imbalance helps explain why pay equity exists at all – and why it is often misunderstood. Pay equity is often confused with equal pay, but they address different problems.
Equal pay is about paying people the same for doing the same job. By contrast, pay equity, is about equal pay for work of equal value. It is a fundamental human right. It addresses whether different jobs – often in different industries – are being paid fairly relative to each other, given the skill, responsibility, effort and conditions involved.
When women are concentrated in undervalued occupations, equal pay within these jobs does not close the overall gender pay gap across the economy. If an entire occupation is underpaid relative to comparable work, equal pay within it simply preserves that imbalance.
Addressing this requires pay equity processes that allow comparisons across occupations, both within and outside the industry, so that female-dominated roles can be properly assessed against comparable work elsewhere in the labour market.
The subsequent “people’s select committee” inquiry, launched by ten former women MPs to allow for public submissions and closer scrutiny of those changes, has created an opportunity to revisit how pay equity operates and what it is meant to achieve.
Our research helps explain why these processes exist at all. Even after decades of change, the gendered structure of work remains.
There is often an assumption that wages simply reflect productivity – that workers are paid according to their “marginal product”, or what an extra worker adds to output. In practice, pay is shaped by more than productivity alone.
Bargaining power, pay-setting institutions and long-standing norms all matter, especially in occupations where output is difficult to measure or price. This is particularly true in care, teaching and support roles, where the value of work is real but not easily captured in market prices.
Pay equity is designed to deal with that reality. It recognises that if wages reflect institutional history as well as productivity, then undervaluation can persist even in a well-functioning labour market.
Over five decades, progress toward gender equality at work has been real – but uneven. Women have moved into many new roles. Men have not followed in the same way.
That imbalance continues to shape pay outcomes across the economy, and pay equity settlement processes were designed in response to that structural reality. As debates about pay equity continue, it is worth keeping that original purpose in view.
Pay equity is not about special treatment. It is about ensuring that work is valued fairly in a labour market where the division of jobs by gender has narrowed, but not disappeared.
Much has been done, by way of interviews and Instagram reels, to market Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights as a tale of ferocious passion and untameable desire. The question of precisely whose passion we see play out onscreen is a crucial one.
Fennel says the film reflects her personal reading of Emily Brontë’s arresting tale of generational trauma, possession and violence. I had a different experience when I first read Wuthering Heights. I became immersed in a decidedly unsexy story of abuse, and had “bad dreams in the night” over Heathcliff’s brutal nature.
Nowhere is Heathcliff’s brutality more explicit than in his treatment of Isabella Linton, who becomes his wife. Isabella is the sister (or, in Fennell’s interpretation, ward) of Edgar Linton, Heathcliff’s rival for Catherine (Cathy) Earnshaw’s affections.
Heathcliff and Isabella’s marriage is marked by severe domestic and sexual abuse. In Brontë’s novel, Isabella chooses to flee Heathcliff’s tyranny and construct a life for herself independent of him. As the literary scholar Judith E. Pike notes, this was a radical transgression of historical norms, in which Victorian morality would expect her to endure such treatment for love of her husband.
Isabella is presented as a young, unworldly girl who is extremely childlike.Warner Bros.
Returning to the novel recently, I was struck once more by Isabella’s decimation of her husband’s propensity towards cruelty. I believe any retelling of Wuthering Heights should be faithful to, as opposed to a taming of, its radicalism. Yet when faced with Fennell’s Isabella, I encountered not the daring figure of the source text, but a doglike submissive.
Dogged desire
The words of writer Katherine Angel came to my mind upon exiting the cinema. In her work Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again, Angel argues that, in the wake of #MeToo, a heavy burden has been placed on women to “say what we want, and indeed know what we want” when it comes to sex and desire. It was Angel’s bold question, “Why must the secrets of desire be uncovered?” that reared its head in me after seeing Isabella on all fours.
As Angel contends, “context is everything” when it comes to desire. At first glance, Isabella (portrayed by Irish actress Alison Oliver) is the epitome of the “born sexy yesterday” trope: a female character who is at once physically mature and attractive, but has the mental faculties of an innocent, naive child. Only just coming into the world in her preliminary scenes, Isabella is a lover of dolls and ribbons, elaborate dresses and hairstyles.
It is this infantilised state, to the point of absurdity (in one scene, she unknowingly creates a scrapbook with flowers and mushrooms evoking genitalia), that makes Isabella’s sudden yearning for Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) all the more jarring. Capitalising on established fantasies of Elordi as the “I can fix him”“ archetype, Fennell renders Heathcliff the key to unlocking Isabella’s secret desires.
The violence Isabella experiences in her marriage is transformed from abuse to consensual sexual play in Emerald Fennell’s adaptation.Warner Brothers
And yet, it is only when Heathcliff is spurned – after Catherine has (finally) put an end to their trysts – that the duty of sexually satisfying him falls to Isabella. From the moment he breaks through her bedroom window, he discloses all of his ill-intent towards Isabella.
Heathcliff not only desires her virginity (“Do you know what comes next?”) but her hand in marriage, all in the name of spiting Cathy. He repeats the refrain, “Do you want me to stop?” as he makes Isabella aware of the brutality he will bring down upon her. As he derides and undresses her, she clutches her crucifix and shakes her head to say, “No, go on.”
Deviating from Brontë’s story, Fennell’s Isabella is rendered a sexual submissive, a consenting party to her own abuse.
Making no attempt to leave him (as she does in the novel), Isabella relishes being the dog, literally leashed by Heathcliff. Rather than giving credence to Isabella’s words as they appear in the book – “The single pleasure I can imagine is to die, or to see him dead!” – in Fennell’s adaptation, Isabella’s deviant sexual desires are read through the words of her abuser: “I’ve sometimes relented, from pure lack of invention, in my experiments on what she could endure, and still creep shamefully cringing back!”
Fennell’s “uncovering” of Isabella’s secret desires helps the audience to decide, as posited by Angel, “whether a man’s actions were justified”. In order to realise her desires for Cathy and Heathcliff onscreen, Fennell’s Heathcliff must be exonerated. And he is, most grievously, through Isabella desiring to be his sexual submissive. Only then could the film’s ending play out: Heathcliff exudes Romeo as he lays beside a dead Cathy in her “skin room” tomb.
So Isabella’s desire is invoked, in accordance with Angel’s theory, as “proof that violence wasn’t, in fact, violence”. Fennel’s Heathcliff is not cruel and abusive, but a communicative and intentional dominant partner in a BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism and masochism) relationship which Isabella, as a submissive, enthusiastically consents to.
It is deeply troubling that the drive of Brontë’s Isabella, a survivor of domestic abuse, has been reread to dramatically absolve her abuser. The girl sobbing behind me as the credits rolled attests to the success of this exoneration. Really, she should be crying over the scripting of violent abuse as consensual play.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
And yet, as the war following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 enters its fifth year, the attitude of the Russian public remains difficult to gauge: Just over half of Russians, according to one recent poll, expect the war to end in 2026; yet a majority say that should negotiations fail, Moscow needs to “escalate” with greater use of force.
As observers ofRussian society, we believe this ambiguity in Russian public opinion gives President Vladimir Putin the cover to continue pushing hard for his goals in Ukraine. Yet at the same time, a deeper dive into the Russian public’s apparent support for the war suggests that it is more fragile than the Russian president would like to believe.
Putin’s social contract
From Day 1 of the conflict, Western strategy has been predicated on the belief that economic sanctions would eventually cause either the Russian elite or its society to persuade Putin to abandon the war.
This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract of sorts: The Russian people will be loyal to the Kremlin if they enjoy a stable standard of living and are allowed to pursue their private lives without interference from the state.
The Russian economy has been struggling since 2014, so many analysts believed that this social contract was coming under strain even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, after four years of war, the combination of exclusion from European markets and a tripling of military spending has led to economic stagnation and mounting pressure on living standards.
One problem with the social contract approach is that it tends to downplay the role of ideology.
It is possible that Putin’s “Make Russia Great Again” propaganda resonates with a significant part of the Russian public. Polling has consistently placed Putin’s approval rating above 80% since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict.
Of course, the validity of the results of polls in an authoritarian society at war cannot be taken at face value. Yet, one shouldn’t rule out that some of that support is genuine and rests not just on a stable economy but also on popular endorsement of Putin’s pledge to restore Russia’s power and influence on the world stage.
Some scholars point to a “rally around the flag” effect. There was an apparent surge in Putin’s approval rating after the use of military force against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
It is hard to tell whether the surge in support for Putin reflects a genuine shift in opinion or just a response to media coverage and what people perceive as the acceptable response.
That leaves open the question of whether the “Putin consensus” will break down at some point in the future if the costs of the war start to hit home for a majority of Russians.
The problem with polls
The consensus view among observers is that a small minority of Russians oppose the war, a slightly larger minority enthusiastically support the war, and the majority passively go along with what the state is doing.
There are still some independent pollsters conductingsurveys in Russia that report a high level of support among respondents for the “special military operation” against Ukraine, with figures ranging between 60% and 70%.
A number of researchers have pointed out the difficulty in getting an accurate snapshot of Russian public opinion, given that the polling questions might make the respondent fearful of being accused of breaking laws that penalize “spreading fake news” and “discrediting the army” with a lengthy prison sentence.
The Levada Center, which is still regarded as an independent and relatively reliable pollster, conducts its interviews face to face in people’s homes but has a very low response rate. Polls conducted online, in return for monetary rewards, can try to find demographically balanced respondents, but the problem of wariness about giving answers that are critical of the regime remains. In Russia’s current political environment, refusing to answer or giving a socially acceptable response is a rational strategy.
Some scholars, such as those associated with the Public Sociology Laboratory, which looks at public sentiment in post-Soviet states, still conduct fieldwork inside Russia, sending researchers to live incognito in provincial towns and observe social practices involving support for the war.
Their ethnographic research finds little evidence for a “rally around the flag” effect in provincial Russian society. Other analysts have turned to digital ethnography of social media as an alternative source of insight. But analysts unfamiliar with the local and digital context risk mistaking performative loyalty for genuine belief.
‘Internal emigration’
Most Russian citizens try to avoid political discussion altogether and retreat into what is often described as “internal emigration” – living their own lives while keeping interactions with the authorities to a minimum.
This practice dates back to the Soviet period but resurfaced as political repression increased after Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.
There is no doubt that there are many fervent war supporters in Russia. They are quite vocal and visible because the state allows them to be – such as the military bloggers reporting from the front lines.
Apart from looking at opinion polls and social media, one can also probe the level of genuine support for the war by looking at everyday practices. If popular support for the war were enthusiastic, recruitment offices would be overwhelmed. They are not.
Instead, Russia has relied heavily on financial incentives, aggressive advertising, prison recruitment and coercive mobilization. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of men have sought to avoid conscription by leaving the country, hiding from authorities or exploiting legal exemptions.
Symbolic participation follows a similar pattern. State-sponsored Z symbols continue to dominate public space – the letter Z is used as a symbol of support for the war, in slogans such as “Za pobedu,” which translates to “for victory.” But privately displayed signs of support have largely disappeared.
Humanitarian aid to be sent to soldiers on the front lines or occupied Ukraine is often collected through schools and churches, where participation is shaped by social or administrative pressure. But many participants frame their involvement as helping individuals rather than supporting the war itself.
Reality vs. lived experience
High-profile propaganda products frequently fail to resonate. Music charts and streaming platforms in Russia are dominated not by patriotic anthems but by an eclectic mix of songs about personal relationships, such as Jakone’s moody ballad “Eyes As Wet As Asphalt,” songs in praise of “Hoodies” and even a catchy Bashkir folk song.
Book sales show strong demand for works such as George Orwell’s “1984” and Viktor Frankl’s Holocaust memoir “Man’s Search for Meaning,” suggesting that readers are searching for ways to understand authoritarianism, trauma and moral responsibility rather than celebrating militarism.
Putin’s campaign to promote what he sees as traditional values appears not to be cutting through. Divorce rates are among the highest in the world – and birth rates continue to fall.
Heading into the Ukraine war’s fifth year, the gulf between the Kremlin version of reality and the lived experience of ordinary Russians remains. It echoes a pattern we have seen before: In the final decade of the Soviet Union the Kremlin became increasingly out of touch with the views of its people.
History will not necessarily repeat itself – but the masters of the Kremlin should be conscious of the parallels.
Australian students are returning to university campuses for the start of the academic year. They do so amid highly charged debates around racism and antisemitism.
Australian universities have been accused both of failing to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom, and failing to protect the safety and wellbeing of Jewish students and staff.
A new Australian Human Rights Commission study found more than 90% of religious Jewish students and staff had experienced racism at university. High rates were also reported for secular Jewish, Middle Eastern, Indigenous and Asian students.
The study noted how universities
face the challenge of creating respectful learning environments while allowing some discomfort in engaging with difficult ideas.
I research academic freedom and freedom of speech. As we begin semester one, how can universities balance the need to protect students, teachers and staff with the need to encourage robust and proper debates?
Academic freedom and freedom of speech
Academic freedom concerns speech or work related to teaching, study or research. Freedom of speech relates to activities on university land or in connection with the university, but not related to teaching, study or research.
Legislation requires Australian universities to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom and to have policies upholding these freedoms. All university enterprise agreements also contain provisions around academic freedom.
The main practical framework for universities is a voluntary model code for academic freedom and freedom of speech. This was developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French in 2019 at the federal government’s request. It is set up to “ensure” freedom of lawful speech and academic freedom, subject to other “restrictions”.
New report cards
In 2026, universities will also need to demonstrate they have taken meaningful steps to regulate antisemitic speech. They will be assessed via a report card, with grades A through to D.
This was a recommendation from the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s report last year. The report cards will focus on university policies, complaints processes and antisemitism awareness. Greg Craven, a former vice-chancellor of Australian Catholic University, is leading the assessment process.
Universities will be given a chance to respond and improve their performance if there are issues. The first round of reports is due in May, adding to the focus on how universities handle these issues.
How can unis respond?
Universities can take several steps if there is antisemitic speech in classes or on campus.
They can take disciplinary action (including sacking or expulsion) against unlawful speech. Unlawful speech includes incitement of violence or hatred toward “protected groups”. These are groups distinguished by a certain characteristic, including race, religion or nationality. It is also illegal to display prohibited symbols or perform the Nazi salute.
Universities can also take action against speech that disrupts its teaching and research activities or prevents it from fostering the wellbeing of students and staff. This might include derogatory slurs in classrooms, protesters coming into classrooms or chanting outside libraries and lecture halls.
There are also protections against threatening, humiliating or intimidating behaviour. This is distinct from something that is merely offensive, shocking or insulting.
This distinction can be difficult to pin down and may require universities to take detailed legal advice. But the model code can be used to protect student and staff safety, while upholding freedom of speech and academic freedom
What does this mean in 2026?
This year, universities need to demonstrate they have taken meaningful steps to regulate antisemitic speech, but without contravening freedom of speech or academic freedom.
It should mean students can debate and take opposing sides about Israel and the conflict in Gaza in an international law class, for example.
If they do this in a biology class, this would not be academic freedom. It may be freedom of speech, but could also be seen as disrupting teaching activities – and so subject to disciplinary action.
If students use derogatory slurs against each other at that time, universities may decide this not only disrupts teaching but is threatening, humiliating or intimidating and so may take disciplinary action.
What about outside classes?
Universities will need to ask similar questions if derogatory slurs, personal attacks or loud aggressive arguments or chanting occur in university corridors or elsewhere on campus.
Although the students or staff would still be exercising their rights to freedom of speech on campus, the manner of this speech can be regulated. Is aggressive chanting disrupting teaching or research? Is it threatening, humiliating or intimidating students on campus?
Under the model code, universities can ban visiting speakers if a speech is likely to be “unlawful”, “prejudice the fulfilment by the university of its duty to foster the wellbeing of staff and students” or,
fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the university’s character as an institution of higher learning.
All this shows universities face a delicate balancing job ahead. They need to make sure they remain places of robust debate. And students and staff feel safe to study, work and participate in these debates.
Since October 2023, Israel’s war in Gaza has caused mass human suffering. But it has also brought devastation to the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people.
In our recent article in the International Journal of Heritage Studies, we documented the extent of heritage destruction in Gaza and analysed the strikingly limited response by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
We argue that UNESCO’s failures have consequences beyond Gaza, as they weaken deterrence of attacks on heritage sites globally and risk normalising impunity for these types of crimes in conflict.
Heritage destruction in Gaza
Gaza has a rich and layered heritage, with archaeological traces dating to at least 1300 BCE. It has long sat at the crossroads of many cultures, and has been controlled by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.
Gaza is also home to historical sites important to the three main faiths of the region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Much of this cultural heritage now lies in ruin. UNESCO’s Gaza damage assessment list includes 150 sites that have been damaged or destroyed since the war began.
Some of these are globally significant sites. Two are on UNESCO’s World Heritage Tentative List:
Other damaged or destroyed sites include:
the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrios Church, which dates to 425 CE and is sometimes referred to as the third-oldest church in the world
the seventh-century Great Omari Mosque, thought to be the first mosque in Gaza, along with its 13th-century library containing rare Islamic manuscripts
the Qasr al-Basha, a fortress also known as Pasha Palace, which was built in the mid-13th century by the Mamluk sultanate and had been turned into an archaeological museum
Apart from creating this list, UNESCO has been relatively muted in its response, compared with the role the agency has played in other conflicts.
This doesn’t mean it’s been completely silent. It has issued several statements condemning the destruction in Gaza and calling on “all involved parties to strictly adhere to international law”.
It has also elevated one heritage site to its List of World Heritage in Danger – the Saint Hilarion Monastery. Taking this step strengthens the protections around the site, with potential penalties for intentional damage.
Yet, despite these efforts, we question whether UNESCO has truly met the moment. Our analysis identifies a pattern of omission and understatement that is difficult to reconcile with UNESCO’s own mandate and the legal architecture that exists to protect cultural property in armed conflict.
For example, UNESCO has failed to publicly invoke the 1954 Hague Convention in relation to Gaza, which aims to protect cultural sites during conflict. The agency has cited it in virtually every major conflict since its ratification.
It also didn’t seek urgent action from the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly to protect cultural sites. The agency did this in response to the Islamic State’s acts in Syria and Iraq (including the desecration of the World Heritage site of Palmyra). In 2017, for instance, the security council passed a resolution backed by UNESCO that laid out a number of steps to help protect cultural heritage in conflict.
Similarly, UNESCO has not worked with the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice to initiate proceedings against Israel or Israeli officials for the destruction of heritage in Gaza. The agency did this after conflicts in the Balkans and Mali. These trials established the intentional destruction of cultural property during conflict as a war crime.
Finally, UNESCO has not taken its usual approach of explicitly naming Israel as the perpetrator of cultural destruction in Gaza. It has taken this step in many recent conflicts. This includes Ukraine, where is has frequently named and condemned Russia as the perpetrator.
Why has UNESCO been so cautious?
One explanation offered by critics is geopolitical constraint. UNESCO has increasingly been criticised for an overdependence on voluntary state contributions. This can make the agency reluctant to confront powerful countries for fear of alienating supporters.
This dynamic is certainly evident in UNESCO’s long and strained relationship with Israel and the US. Both formally withdrew from UNESCO in 2019 because the agency had described Israel as an occupying power in Gaza and the West Bank, and condemned its destruction of Palestinian heritage.
But we argue there’s something more troubling occurring – the erosion of UNESCO’s willingness and capacity to activate the legal and normative tools it helped build.
Once a mighty advocate for the protection of culture worldwide, UNESCO has slowly withered into a largely ineffective and technocratic agency that sidesteps complex issues and is hamstrung by internal division.
UNESCO’s response
In response to the arguments raised here, UNESCO sent a detailed email explaining its actions on heritage protection in Gaza. These are some of the points raised by a UNESCO spokesperson:
On citing the 1954 Hague Convention:
Across different conflicts, UNESCO sometimes explicitly cites the 1954 Hague Convention […] and in other instances use the broader formulation “international law”.
UNESCO also communicates with the concerned Member States bilaterally […] This has been done on several occasions through correspondence addressed to the authorities of Israel, for example to remind Israel of its obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention.
On explicitly naming Israel as a perpetrator:
UNESCO is not a judiciary body, therefore its role is not to assign responsibility. In specific case of Ukraine, there are several Security Council and/or UNESCO governing bodies decisions that may explain specific statements.
On the lack of willpower to use its tools and resources on Gaza:
UNESCO activates its legal, normative and programmatic tools within the remits of its mandate and available funds. The needs are enormous, and we take this opportunity to renew UNESCO’s call in support of the people of Gaza.
Why Gaza matters
UNESCO’s limited response to the destruction in Gaza matters. Heritage protection is not only about salvaging damaged sites and trying to rebuild them. It’s also vital for defining unacceptable conduct and deterring future violations.
When the world’s foremost body on the protection of cultural heritage limits itself to cautious generalities, it fosters a permissive environment. It allows this destruction to be treated as regrettable collateral damage of war, rather than an actionable crime. This undermines UNESCO’s credibility.
It can also set a dangerous precedent. If the large-scale destruction of heritage occurs in full view of the world, with no repercussions, future belligerents may believe the costs of heritage crimes will be tolerated.
When most people hear the word radiation, their mind jumps straight to nuclear disasters, such as at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
But radiation is everywhere. In fact, right now, as you read this, you are being exposed to radiation from the ground beneath your feet, the air around you, and even your own body. Radiation is not inherently bad: what matters is how much you are exposed to.
To this end, my team and I have built the first radiation map of our home town, Sydney. This map provides a new perspective of the city, showing that the ground beneath the city is constantly emitting a small amount of natural radiation. Spoiler: it’s nothing to worry about.
Radiation dose rate map for metropolitan Sydney.Author provided., CC BY-NC
What is radiation?
At its most basic level, radiation is energy travelling through space.
In nature, it is often produced by radioactive elements – atoms that are unstable and so prefer to convert into other elements by releasing energy, ending up in a more stable state. This process is called radioactive decay.
When Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, it contained radioactive elements, such as uranium, thorium and potassium. Some radioactive elements decay in a fraction of a second; others decay so slowly they are still present today.
For example, natural uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means it takes 4.5 billion years for half of a given amount of uranium to decay, eventually turning into lead, which is stable.
Uranium, thorium and potassium dominate natural background radiation because they combine two key features: they were abundant when Earth formed, and they have half-lives comparable to, or even longer than, the age of Earth. Many other radioactive elements either decayed away long ago or were never present in significant amounts.
Because of this, these elements are everywhere. They are found in rocks and soil, taken up by plants, eaten by animals, and ultimately end up in our bodies. That is why we are, in a very literal sense, mildly radioactive.
We said that radiation is energy. But if you zoom in far enough, that energy starts to look like it’s being carried around by tiny particles: alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (electrons or positrons), and gamma rays – photons, just like light, but far more energetic.
The key difference between the types of particle is how far they manage to travel. Alpha and beta particles don’t get very far before they run out of steam. A bit of air, clothing, or skin is usually enough to stop them. For that reason, they are mostly a concern when the radioactive material ends up inside the body – for example if it is inhaled, as can happen with radon gas.
Gamma rays, on the other hand, travel easily through air and out of the ground.
That makes them more relevant for external exposure, but also extremely useful: they escape from rocks and soil and reach our detectors. This is why gamma radiation is the type we can use to map what is happening beneath our feet.
When most people hear the word radiation, their mind jumps straight to nuclear disasters, such as at Fukushima in Japan.Kimimasa Mayama/Pool/EPA
Measuring Sydney’s radiation
When I moved from Abu Dhabi to Sydney in 2024, I observed something unexpected. The natural radioactivity I was measuring around the city with a small handheld gamma-ray detector was about five times higher than what I had been used to in the United Arab Emirates.
That raised two questions: why was natural radiation higher in Sydney than in Abu Dhabi? And was it safe?
Australia does have national radiation maps. But these are mostly based on surveys carried out from aircraft flying tens of kilometres apart. They are excellent for understanding broad geological patterns, but far too coarse to tell you how radiation varies from one neighbourhood, park or suburb to the next.
My students Tengiz Ibrayev and Matilda Lawtong and I set out to build the first high-resolution, ground-based map of natural gamma radiation for metropolitan Sydney. We carried out a radiation survey across a 10 by 10 kilometre region of the city, dividing the area into a grid and visiting almost every square on foot.
At each location – usually in public parks or open green spaces – we placed a gamma-ray detector on the ground and let it measure radiation for several minutes.
This gave us reliable averages rather than quick snapshots.
We also took measurements over open water in Sydney Harbour on a ferry. Water blocks radiation coming from the ground, so this let us measure cosmic radiation from space – high-energy charged particles originating from the Sun and deep space that constantly hit Earth). We then subtracted this background radiation, so we could focus on the radiation coming from the ground.
To understand why radiation levels changed from place to place, we also collected soil samples at selected locations and analysed them in the laboratory using very sensitive gamma detectors. This allowed us to measure how much uranium, thorium and potassium were present in the soil – the elements responsible for most natural radiation.
Sampling locations and rock types of the study area in Sydney. The red and yellow circles represent the gamma dose rate measurements on land and water, respectively. The black shovels correspond to the soil sampling locations.Author provided, CC BY-NC
The pattern follows geology
Radiation levels across the city do vary, but not randomly. Areas built on sandstone and shale tend to show higher natural radiation than areas dominated by younger sediments.
In other words, the pattern follows geology, not human activity.
Radiation exposure is usually measured in units called millisieverts (mSv). Your own body contributes about 0.03mSv each year, mainly from potassium naturally present in your tissues.
Across the part of Sydney we mapped, the average terrestrial gamma radiation from the ground is about 0.24mSv per year. Even the highest values we measured are well within the range of natural background radiation seen worldwide.
We are hoping to expand this work to other cities around Australia through citizen science in schools. Doing so helps us turns something abstract and invisible into something we can measure, compare and understand.
Measuring radiation replaces fear with context. It doesn’t make the world more dangerous – it makes it clearer.
The extreme weather events and resulting destruction that have hit New Zealand this summer are not only signs of a changing climate. They also highlight the now indispensable role of remote sensing satellite technology.
Broadly, remote sensing involves gathering information about Earth from a distance – most often from satellites equipped with sensors that measure different forms of electromagnetic energy.
Operating across multiple wavelengths, these instruments can function at night and capture conditions over large areas in a single pass. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites detect ground movement and flood extent even during heavy rain and thick cloud.
Optical sensors capture detailed imagery showing building damage, blocked roads, sediment plumes and coastal change. Thermal sensors identify heat patterns and temperature anomalies that signal hotspots or stressed environments.
Together, these systems provide a reliable, real-time picture of ground conditions, especially when severe weather renders traditional monitoring impossible.
But despite this technological progress, the framework that controls access to satellite data is alarmingly fragile, leaving a disaster-prone country like New Zealand vulnerable.
Better emergency response and risk mapping
For affected communities, satellite sensing technologies can be transformative. When rivers overflow, bridges collapse and extreme weather prevents response teams from entering affected areas, satellites continue operating uninterrupted.
Authorities can use the information to rapidly determine which communities are at risk, where landslides have destabilised slopes, and which roads or bridges have failed. It sharply reduces the time between impact and emergency response.
Instead of relying on scattered reports, responders can prioritise resources, guide evacuations, plan helicopter drops and coordinate rescue operations using a shared, high-resolution map of evolving hazards.
Remote sensing remains equally valuable long after the immediate crisis. Satellite data supports damage assessments for insurance and government relief, informs the reconstruction of roads, river systems and stormwater infrastructure, and helps refine hazard models for future storms and floods.
In remote areas such as the West Coast, East Coast and alpine South Island – where monitoring networks are sparse and terrain is difficult – satellite imagery is often the only wide-area information source.
Over months and years, repeated imagery helps scientists and planners understand how landscapes are changing: whether slopes are weakening, rivers are shifting course, or coastlines are retreating under rising seas and intensifying storms.
Stronger global agreements needed
Rapid access to satellite data is supported by the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, which coordinates satellites from different agencies and companies to provide free imagery and disaster maps when activated.
New Zealand is not a member but the National Emergency Management Agency secured “user status” in 2024.
Since participation is voluntary, some experts worry there is no guarantee satellites will be tasked appropriately, no assured access to archives, and no obligation for members to respond to every request.
The legal framework around remote sensing remains sparse. Outer space law states that space activities should benefit all countries but offers little detail.
The United Nations Remote Sensing Principles encourage cooperation and “reasonable” access, but lack enforcement and set no minimum standards for timely data sharing.
As well, many high-value satellites are privately owned. Outside voluntary emergency arrangements, access depends on commercial licences, pricing and national security restrictions. These constraints can delay critical information when it is needed most.
Commercial operators refusing to provide imagery can be a major challenge. With no binding international obligations on private companies, New Zealand cannot compel access during emergencies without pre-existing contracts.
Refusals can delay situational awareness, reduce mapping accuracy and leave dangerous gaps in response planning. So it is heartening that the New Zealand Space Agency is taking steps to address the gaps in international arrangements, and ensure more reliable access to commercial satellite data.
AI can rapidly detect floods, classify landslides, and evaluate building and road damage. But when errors occur, accountability becomes unclear. Does it lie with the data providers, the analytics companies that process the imagery, or the public agencies relying on the outputs?
Ensuring reliability requires transparent documentation of models, inputs, thresholds and uncertainties. Robust cybersecurity safeguards are also needed to prevent deliberate attempts to alter data streams or mislead machine‑learning models (which could distort analysis during a disaster).
But no binding rules require human oversight of AI-derived remote-sensing products, leaving governments to determine how much human review is necessary for safety-critical decisions.
To strengthen national resilience, New Zealand needs to advocate for clearer international data-sharing rules, and embed privacy, transparency and human oversight in public sector workflows.
It must also treat the satellite-to-ground data chain as critical infrastructure, with built in redundancy, security and rapid incident reporting. Remote sensing is now core national infrastructure.
The extreme weather of the past months emphasises why. When storms intensify too quickly for traditional systems to cope, satellites and AI-enabled analytics help provide a rapid, scalable view of unfolding risk.
Strong agreements, responsible AI governance and resilient data pipelines ensure New Zealand gets the right data – fast – when communities need it most.
What do coffee, sugar, wheat, soy, eucalypts and paperbarks all have in common?
They are all susceptible to parasitic rust diseases caused by fungi. Plant rust disease can easily be spotted by the characteristic orange or yellow spores that cover plant leaves, making them look rusty.
The spores are easily transferred to your skin by touch or carried by the wind to other host plants.
Despite their symptomatic similarities, each species of rust fungus is restricted to a single type of plant host.
Farmers and nursery managers often use fungicide to tackle plant rust disease, but we need to find ways to decrease our reliance on fungicide treatment. Otherwise, we risk fuelling fungicide resistance.
Could treating with natural beneficial fungi be a viable alternative?
What we did and what we found
To find out, we grew 143 species of fungi that were living in association with the leaves of the Australian native scrub turpentine tree, a species now considered critically endangered due to the effects of myrtle rust disease.
Myrtle rust disease, cause by the exotic fungus Austropuccinia psidii is a type of plant rust disease, and it’s a huge problem. At least 380 Australian native plants are susceptible to it.
Myrtle rust threatens trees and shrubs in the Myrtaceae family of plants. This is Australia’s largest plant family in Australia, and includes tea tree and eucalypts. It also threatens several rainforest tree species.
The recent arrival of this disease into Australia, in 2010, means little is known about how we may feasibly control it within natural ecosystems.
Our research found that of the 143 species of fungi we grew, nine of them naturally stopped the germination of the myrtle rust spores in the lab.
This suggests native plants may already harbour beneficial fungi that could protect them from this deadly disease.
How? Our research shows one way beneficial fungi can protect the plant from the rust disease is by producing chemicals that attack the disease and prevent it from infecting the plant.
It’s like a biological machine, producing microscopic amounts of fungicide directly onto the rust as it grows.
Other ways these fungi can protect the plant are through competition for nutrients or by stimulating the plant’s immune system to protect itself.
One advantage over fungicides may be that if the fungi establishes a symbiotic relationship with the plant, repeated applications may not be necessary.
So far, we’ve only shown this in the lab. More research is clearly needed.
Now, we need to make sure the fungi can effectively do their job in the environment on our most susceptible plants. We may even one day be able to incorporate these fungi into our plant conservation breeding programs.
A growing body of research
A similar study of myrtle rust disease in Hawaii found that adding multiple beneficial fungi to the leaves of the native Hawaiian Koʻolau eugenia or nioi plant increased the effectiveness of the beneficial fungi over using a single strain alone.
This highlights that we have a lot to learn about how beneficial fungi can protect plants.
Our previous research also identified that fungi can protect crop plants such as wheat, barley and oats from rust disease.
Similarstudies around the world have found fungi can also protect against coffee rust and soybean rust, among others.
Despite many successful lab studies, there remains a gap between lab studies and field applications. And even if it could be proven to work in the field, then we’d need to find efficient ways to get the beneficial fungi onto the plants that need it.
That said, it’s worth persevering. If we want strategies to reduce fungicide usage on farms and in the environment we must continue to learn more about beneficial fungi and how we can best use them to our advantage.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toni Pikoos, Adjunct Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology; Federation University Australia
If you walk into a cosmetic surgeon’s office, you probably wouldn’t expect to be asked about your recent break-up or how you cope with stress.
But in Australia, that has been standard practice for nearly three years.
That’s after the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency introduced mandatory mental health screening before cosmetic procedures. This includes cosmetic surgery, like a facelift, and non-surgical procedures including cosmetic injections and laser treatments.
This decision was part of a series of reforms designed to help keep patients safe. But it has also made the Australian cosmetic industry one of the most tightly regulated in the world.
So how effective have these reforms been, almost three years on? And are patients any better off?
Cosmetic medicine is booming in Australia
Each year, Australians spend more than A$1 billion on more than 500,000 cosmetic procedures. That means we spend more money on cosmetic medicine per capita than the United States.
In 2023, more than a third of Australians were considering having cosmetic surgery in the next decade. Interest is particularly strong among young women, with 54% of young Australian women considering cosmetic surgery at some point in their lives. Most people seeking surgery hope these elective procedures will improve their appearance or self-esteem.
After having cosmetic surgery, about 80–90% of patients are satisfied with the results. Many also report feeling better about their appearance up to five years after the procedure. Some studies also show cosmetic surgery improves patients’ mood and quality of life.
However, some patients may regret a cosmetic procedure or feel worse afterwards. This is why identifying vulnerable patients, especially those considering irreversible procedures, is crucial.
So, what’s the link between cosmetic surgery and mental health?
Research shows examining patients’ mental health before any cosmetic procedure affects how they feel after an operation. People with heightened symptoms of psychological distress, such as anxiety and depression, are more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of a cosmetic procedure. They are also more likely to find their recovery challenging and even experience more physical complications after surgery.
Certain psychological conditions have a greater impact on patients’ mental health after surgery. One example is body dysmorphic disorder, where people often obsess over perceived flaws in their appearance. These so-called flaws can be subtle or not apparent to others. As a result, these patients may look to cosmetic surgery as a way to fix their perceived flaws.
A 2022 review of related studies found up to 20% of patients requesting cosmetic procedures had body dysmorphic disorder. And our 2025 study shows about 12% of Australian cosmetic patients either have unrealistic expectations of cosmetic surgery or show symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder or psychological distress.
Many patients with body dysmorphic disorder still feel dissatisfied with their appearance after cosmetic treatment. This is because they often focus on the same perceived flaw or a completely different one. This can negatively impact their mental health and, in some cases, may lead patients to take legal action against surgeons for not delivering the desired result.
The reason for screening
Nearly three years ago, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency changed its guidelines about cosmetic procedures.
As a result, doctors who perform cosmetic procedures must screen patients for psychological conditions, such as body dysmorphic disorder. They can do this by conducting interviews or using tools such as a written questionnaire.
If doctors identify any concerns, they must refer patients to a psychologist, psychiatrist or GP before proceeding with treatment.
However, a recent national survey suggests the cosmetic industry is not embracing these reforms. This research shows 84% of plastic surgeons referred fewer than 5% of patients. This is far less than our research would indicate have body dysmorphic disorder. About 70% of plastic surgeons interviewed say they would not continue screening if it were not mandatory.
From a patient’s perspective, mandatory screening may mean they can’t undergo cosmetic surgery. In our 2025 study involving more than 8,000 Australian cosmetic patients, we found people were much more hesitant to report mental health symptoms in a cosmetic clinic, compared to when completing the same questionnaire anonymously for research. This is likely because they felt they needed to “pass” psychological screening tests to receive cosmetic surgery. So, the self-reporting element of current questionnaires is a major limitation.
So, is psychological screening necessary?
The purpose of screening was never to exclude people from cosmetic treatment. Rather, it was designed to help practitioners and patients make informed decisions.
Almost half of people considering cosmetic procedures report mental health concerns. For most, this does not make them unsuitable candidates. But in certain cases, they may benefit from delaying a cosmetic procedure. This would give them time to seek additional psychological support or talk to a practitioner about what they should expect from cosmetic surgery.
Importantly, screening tools should not be used alone. Instead, they should be part of a broader assessment of a patient’s motivations, goals and overall wellbeing. This includes a discussion of how cosmetic surgery may positively or negatively affect their mental health.
But researchers, like ourselves, are working on new screening questionnaires to help surgeons more accurately assess a patient’s mindset and identify any psychological concerns before they have a cosmetic procedure. But we need more research to know if these will improve outcomes for patients and practitioners.
Yes, talking about your mental health with a cosmetic surgeon may feel uncomfortable. But it helps ensure any decision to change how you look comes from a place of stability, not distress.
While the world has focused on the atrocities in Gaza, Israel continues its support of illegal settlements, hostility and apartheid in the West Bank. Asia-Pacific specialist journalist Ben Bohane reports from Bethlehem for Michael West Media.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Ben Bohane
We are no more than 5 minutes out of Bethlehem on a crisp December morning when my Palestinian driver — let’s call him Ahmed — stops and points to a curl of smoke rising in the valley below, near Beit Jala.
“That’s a local restaurant the Israeli’s are burning since last night. They demand permits even when it is on family land. Israel then gives demolition orders, and no one can stop them.”
It’s the day before Christmas. I’m in the West Bank and Israel for a month to see the situation for myself, to try and understand how this comparatively small area continues to hijack history and our news agenda.
Photojournalist and producer Ben Bohane . . . “Israel has killed more journalists in the past three years than any other government in history.” Image: BB/MWM
The international Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) states 249 media personnel have been killed so far by Israel in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel and Iran since the Gaza war began.
Israel has killed more journalists in the past three years than any other government in history,
assassinating more than all media personnel killed in all the wars of the 20th century combined.
Israel has also now banned many reputable international NGOs from operating there. In late January, the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) finally acknowledged the death toll tally compiled by Palestinian health authorities as accurate, saying it believed 71,000 people had been killed so far — the death toll is now more than 72,000.
I’ve come to the other front, the West Bank, as Israeli settlers and the IDF establish new illegal settlements and make life difficult for Palestinians just trying to eke out a living.
While I’m there, Israel announces 19 new settlements, bringing to 69 the number of new settlements approved in the past few years.
They are slowly circling and strangling Palestinian towns by taking the high ground on hilltops, establishing their own roads to link up with other settlements, and destroying ancient olive groves which locals have long relied on for a meagre income.
Some of these trees are many hundreds of years old, and their desecration seems somehow symbolic of Israel’s attempts to change history and geography.
“We are trapped here”, says Ahmed. “Ever since October 7, Israel has closed off our access to Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. A lot of businesses are struggling to survive after 5 years of shutdowns — first it was covid, and then the Gaza war. No tourists for years.”
Unless they are employed in one of a handful of jobs, such as in hospitals or working for a Christian organisation, Palestinians in the West Bank can’t leave. Denied both Palestinian statehood and Israeli citizenship,
West Bank Palestinians are caught in a limbo where they can’t travel into wider Israel or beyond.
“Israel controls all our movements, all our water, and controls our petrol supply”, says Ahmed. “The only thing they don’t control is the air we breathe, and if they could control that, they would.”
Bulldozer warfare We visit a home recently bulldozed by settlers and fields uprooted because they were considered too close to the expanding nearby Israeli settlement of Beitar Illit. As locals lose access to their olive orchards, the only trees safe are those within towns or around their homes.
I see a young boy with a wheelbarrow full of seedlings and uprooted olive saplings moving towards a nearby field. Ahmed translates:
“The boy says that part of their resistance is to immediately replant the olive trees when settlers chop them down. The olives aren’t just an income for us, they are part of our identity on this land.”
We have to be quick when visiting the contested edges of these towns and fields, as settlers are always watching from nearby hilltops and the IDF can be on the scene in less than 5 minutes. On two occasions, my driver yells to get us back in the car for a hurried exit when he spots settlers driving down to intercept us.
Returning to Bethlehem, the annual Christmas parade is underway. Hundreds of Palestinian, Arab and Armenian Christians in uniforms march along roads leading to Manger Square in the heart of Bethlehem.
Palestinian Authority police guard the route and churches, including the Orthodox Basilica of the Nativity, first begun by Emperor Constantine’s Christian mother Saint Helena in the 4th century. Under this Byzantine church is a grotto where Jesus was supposedly born.
This is the first time in two years that Christmas celebrations, including a huge Christmas tree, have taken place. With few foreign tourists, shops in Bethlehem are happy to see many Muslim families from across the West Bank visiting with children to see Santa and the holy sites. It’s a peaceful time with Christian and Muslim families celebrating together.
I met Father Issa Thaljieh, a Palestinian (Greek Orthodox) priest overseeing the Basilica.
“Issa” is the Muslim name for Jesus. He says the number of Christians continues to dwindle, from 10 percent of the Palestinian population during the British mandate period 100 years ago, to around 1 percent today. Most live overseas now, with Israel incentivising their departure.
Apartheid One thing I hadn’t known until I came here is that Israelis are forbidden from entering any West Bank towns. At the entrance to many towns I visited, including Jericho and Bethlehem, are large road signs in red warning Israeli citizens not to enter.
Although usually framed as a security measure to prevent kidnapping, it has the additional impact of preventing ordinary Israelis and Palestinians from mixing together and stops Israelis from really understanding what is going on across the West Bank. It underlined the sense of apartheid, along with the long winding separation wall that snakes between Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the rest of the West Bank.
Always interested in art and graffiti as forms of resistance, I cruise a length of the wall, near two refugee camps inside Bethlehem and come across artist Banksy’s “Walled Off” hotel, which had only reopened the week before after 5 years of closure.
Upstairs is a gallery supporting local artists, downstairs a museum about the wall and “occupation”, along with a chintzy piano bar styled like a frontier saloon.
The hotel faces a section of the wall emblazoned with graffiti and promises “the worst views in the world”. The wall began construction substantially in 2002, runs for 810 kms and is Israel’s biggest infrastructure project. Banksy’s museum quotes the man put in charge of the build, Danny Tirza:
“The main thing the government told me in giving me the job was,
to include as many Israelis inside the fence and leave as many Palestinians outside as possible.
Down the road, a number of local stores have popped up selling cheap Banksy merch, and apparently, Banksy is fine with all the rip-offs.
Other days are spent visiting Jericho and Hebron with its shrine containing the tomb of Abraham, patriarch of all the monotheistic faiths.
It is a town often at flashpoint between Palestinians and hardcore Israeli settlers who have moved right into pockets of the town, protected by IDF soldiers. A day trip to Ramallah is aborted when my driver says that Israeli forces had entered that morning to destroy dozens of shops and shot two people.
“It’s too dangerous today to visit, and besides, it would take us 5 hours to get through the checkpoints instead of one hour as normal,” he says.
Every day across the West Bank, Palestinians must navigate security challenges, declining business and hungry families. Given the impunity with which Israel operates in Gaza, Palestinians across the West Bank are still standing their ground, but without much hope that the international community will stop Israel’s encroachment.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government wants to extinguish any hope of a two-state solution, but Palestinians will not cede their homes — or their olive trees — easily.
Ben Bohane is Vanuatu-based photojournalist and producer who has reported for global media for more than three decades on religion and war across the world, mainly in the Asia-Pacific region. His website. Republished with permission,
Roger Norman Fowler: 12 September 1948 – 21 February 2026
Roger Fowler, an activist legend of social justice solidarity movements from Bastion Point to resisting apartheid and racist rugby tours and freedom for Palestine, has died after a long illness. He was 77.
Described by some as a “true Tāne Toa”, his protest warrior courage and his commitment to a bicultural and cross-cultural vision for Aotearoa New Zealand, was perhaps best represented by his “Songs of Struggle and Solidarity” vinyl album launched last year.
The first of 14 tracks on the album produced by Banana Boat Records, was “We Are All Palestinians”, which has become an anthem for the Gaza solidarity movement for the past 124 weeks of protest against the Israeli genocide.
Roger Fowler and his wife, Dr Lyn Doherty, with whānau and friends at a community concert in his honour in November 2025. Image: Hone Fowler
Ironically, this was sung yet again by a group in Te Komititanga Square yesterday within hours of his death.
It was written by Fowler after the Viva Palestina solidarity convoy from London to Gaza in 2010.
Tigilau Ness and Roger Fowler at the launch of his album last September 2025. Ness recorded his version of “We Are All Palestinians” here. Image: APR
Fowler led the Kia Ora Gaza team of six Kiwis who drove three of 135 aid-packed ambulances – funded by New Zealand donations — into the besieged enclave. This was followed later by two other land convoys and three Gaza Freedom Flotillas.
In April 2026, a massive new siege-breaking Sumud Flotilla to Gaza with 100 boats and carrying some 1000 activists is being planned.
Gaza solidarity rallies In spite of failing health in recent months, Fowler was frequently seen at Gaza rallies, speaking and singing in his rousing voice.
Close comrade and friend, John Minto, co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), paid tribute to his contribution in a statement today.
“Roger has been a legend of the solidarity movement for many decades as the founder and co-cordinator of Kia Ora Gaza which delivered aid to the besieged Gaza strip by land and by sea,” he said.
“He was a man of great integrity and character with passion for justice. He will remain a guiding light for the solidarity movement here.”
The Palestinian community presenting Roger Fowler an award at the launch of his album last September 2025. Image: APR
Co-chair Maher Nazzal presented Fowler an award for his contribution to Palestinian solidarity last September.
Another comrade, especially during Fowler’s activism in the 1960s and 1970s, Tony Fala, recalls his “dauntless courage, tireless optimism, boundless energy, and vast strategic capacity was profoundly inspiring.”
“Roger was one of the humblest and kindest people I have ever met. He could build coalitions and strengthen community bonds with ease. He sought what brought people together, not what kept them apart.
Belief in ordinary people “He believed in ordinary people and possessed a deep, instinctive understanding of justice. He was strong yet carried no ego.”
Fala praised Fowler’s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Te Ao Māori community life, describing him as a “born oral historian”.
“He gave selflessly to every cause he committed himself to and would move mountains to achieve victory for the struggles he served.”
[embedded content] “We are all Palestinians.” Video: Banana Boat Records
In the weeks before his death, he and his whanau were working hard to complete a history of the socialist Ponsonby People’s Union, “Struggle and Solidarity”, due to be published soon. Fowler met his future wife, Dr Lyn Doherty (Ngati Porou and Ngāpuhi), then while they were activists campaigning to stop landlords evicting tenants.
Activist author Dean Parker once described Fowler as “the Great Helmsman of the legendary Ponsonby People’s Union, brave hero of so many struggles”.
Fowler had lived for almost four decades in Mangere East, a multicultural quarter of South Auckland.
He was manager of the Mangere East Community Learning Centre and an executive member of Out of School Care Network.
The “Free Palestine” photo on the Roger Fowler album launched in September 2025. Image: Banana Boat Records
Impressive community tribute In 1999, he was a recipient of the Queen’s Service Medal for his “services to community” and the people of Mangere East paid an impressive tribute to him with a daytime concert last November.
One of his best remembered local campaigns was the community coalition in 2010 that saved Mangere East’s Postshop.
A one-time bus driver, Fowler strongly campaigned for public transport.
He was also involved with amateur theatre for several decades, including Auckland Light Opera, “The Aunties” children’s theatre and Manukau Performing Arts.
Fowler was a founding member of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the 1970s and he was part of the anti-apartheid movement for 15 years.
In 1969, along with a large group of activists — including Alan Robson, Pat Bolster and Graeme Whimp — he opened the first Resistance Bookshop in Queen Street and he was co-director for a time.
During his lifelong protests, he was arrested and jailed four times and with colleagues he set up a free prison visiting service in 1972 for Paremoremo and Waikeria.
The last track on Fowler’s album is titled “The Final Song” but his music will be long remembered as the hallmark of the life of an extraordinary community and political activist.
• Roger Fowler’s life will be celebrated at Ngā Tapuwae Community Centre, 255 Buckland Road, Mangere, 10-2pm, Wednesday, February 25.
Asia Pacific Report’s David Robie and Del Abcede with Roger Fowler in November 2025. Image: Tony Fala
Last week, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said Aotearoa’s immigration settings were “no way to treat our Pacific cousins”.
“All Pacific people want is a fair go, equivalent to what other nations are getting, and they’re not getting it,” he said outside Parliament.
While Peters’ comments were made in the context of the Pacific Justice petition, the concept of the Pacific as “family” has become a common rhetoric used by politicians and leaders across New Zealand.
In 2018, former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern spoke on such issues facing the Pacific.
“We are the Pacific too, and we are doing our best to stand with our family as they face these threats,” she said during a talk at the Paris Institute.
At the Pacific Islands Forum last year, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said: “This is the Pacific family and we prioritise the centrality of the Pacific Islands Forum.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at the 2025 Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting . . . “This is the Pacific family.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Caleb Fotheringham
But is Aotearoa doing enough to live up to this “Pacific family” rhetoric in the face of daunting and life-changing threats, such as climate change, continues to reshape the region?
Discussions and comparisons continue to arise off the back of Australia’s Falepili Union Treaty, which saw the first group of Tuvaluan migrants relocate towards the end of 2025.
Australia’s implementation of the treaty has sparked criticism over whether New Zealand is failing its Pacific neighbours when it comes to climate-related migration.
‘Increasingly perilous situations’ For Pacific Islanders hoping to move to Aotearoa, there is a pathway.
Under the Pacific Access Category (PAC) ballot, 150 people from specifically Kiribati and 250 from Tuvalu — two of the most vulnerable nations at the forefront of climate impacts — can gain residency every year.
Applicants must pay $1385, pass health checks, meet English requirements, be under 45, and secure a job offer.
Dr Olivia Yates has spent years researching climate mobility from Kiribati and Tuvalu.
University student Olivia Yates at the Auckland march. Image: RNZ/Kate Gregan
She said the tension around climate mobility sits not in a lack of awareness, but in the design of the system itself.
“I think the main takeaway is that New Zealand’s current approach to climate mobility, or at least for the last five years — things are starting to change now — but initially — we do a lot of research, get a lot more information, and leave immigration systems as they are,” she said.
She said Pacific neighbours islands are facing “increasingly difficult” circumstances.
“Disasters are becoming more frequent … the access to food and to water is being challenged because of these creeping impacts of climate change. So as the New Zealand government takes one step forward, I feel like climate change is sort of a step ahead of us,” Dr Yates said.
“It sounds very doom and gloom, but the other thing I would say is that our Pacific neighbours, fundamentally and primarily, want to stay in place. Nobody wants to have to leave.”
In the meantime, people are moving, often through pathways never intended to respond to climate pressure.
“People are using these laws to come to the country and their laws that were not really set up to address climate change and the movement of people in response to climate change,” Dr Yates said.
“They’re primarily economically motivated, and so this creates a whole bunch of issues that are the downstream consequence of using a system for something that is not what it was designed for.”
She said that PAC ballot, created in 2001, has effectively become “the de facto pathway for people from Kiribati and Tuvalu to move here for reasons related to climate change”.
While many migrants cite work, family or opportunity as the primary motivations, these distinctions are becoming blurred.
“It’s kind of becoming increasingly difficult to separate climate change drivers from these factors,” Dr Yates explained.
NZ’s immigration laws are being used in a way that they were not designed for, says Dr Yates. Image: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
And the consequences can be significant. When visas hinge on employment and strict eligibility criteria, families can find themselves vulnerable if those circumstances shift.
“Our current immigration laws are being used in a way that they weren’t designed for, and this is having really negative consequences on people, specifically from Kiribati and Tuvalu,” she said.
“On the other side of that, those that wish to stay, whether because they choose to or because they can’t afford to leave, that visas aren’t available to them, and they start to face increasingly perilous situations that breach their rights.”
Lacking a plan Kiribati community leader Kinaua Ewels, who works closely with Pacific migrants settling in Aotearoa, said the system’s rigidity has left many feeling excluded and unsupported.
She does not believe New Zealand is set up to deal with the realities of climate migration
“I’m hoping the New Zealand government could help the people who are able to move on their own, using their own money, but when they get here, they can actually access work opportunities,” she said.
Kinaua Ewels . . . the PAC still feels restrictive. Image: mpp.govt.nz
Ewels said the PAC still feels restrictive, and lacks a plan to help new arrivals adapt or secure employment.
“They pressure them to look for their own job. There’s no plan for the government to help them settle very easily, to run away from climate change and their life situations back on the island,” Ewels said.
“More can be done.”
According to Ewels, the families who do arrive with the hopes of safety and stability, end up struggling to navigate basic systems, such as healthcare and employment, and get no formal support.
“It’s very restricted in the way that it’s not supportive to the people from the Pacific Islands,” she said.
NZ govt ‘not ready to bring climate refugees’
Ewels said that while New Zealand spoke of the Pacific as “family,” those words continued ringing hollow for communities who saw little practical support.
“They use the family name, which is a very meaningful and deep word back home, but the process is not done yet,” she said.
“In reality, the government is not actually ready to bring people over here in terms of climate refugees or people needing to move because of climate change.”
Ewels said if New Zealand truly viewed the Pacific as family, that connection would extend itself into some meaningful collaboration with Pacific community leaders here in Aotearoa, who could help them navigate the complexities of this situation.
“If the government talks about family, they should work with us, the community leaders, so we can help them at least make sure people are warmly welcomed and supported when they come here,” Ewels said.
Dr Yates said the government was making efforts, but warned the the pace of policy was struggling to keep up with the pace of change happening in the world today.
“I would say that the New Zealand government is trying. But as the government takes one step forward, climate change is starting to outpace us.”
Pacific sea levels have risen by as much as 15cm over the past three decades.
There are predictions that around 50,000 Pacific people across the region could lose their homes each year as the climate crisis reshapes their environments.
In the past decade, one in 10 people from Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu have already migrated.
Kiribati dancers performing at the opening ceremony of the Wellington Pasifika Festival. Image: RNZ Pacific/Tiana Haxton
Kiribati community leader Charles Kiata told RNZ Pacific in October last year that life on the Micronesian island nation was becoming increasingly difficult, as it was being hit by severe storms, with higher temperatures and drought.
“Every part of life, food, shelter, health, is being affected and what hurts the most is that our people feel trapped. They love their home, but their home is slowly disappearing,” Kiata said at the time.
Crops are dying and fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce for the island nation.
Kiata said Kiribati overstayers in New Zealand were anxious they would be sent back home.
“Deporting them back to flooded lands or places with no clean water like Kiribati is not only cruel but it also goes against our shared Pacific values.”
In 2020, Kiribati man Ioane Teitiota took New Zealand to the United Nations Human Rights Committee after his refugee claim, based on sea-level rise, was rejected.
The committee did find his deportation lawful, although ruled that governments must consider the human rights impacts of climate change when assessing deportations.
The term “climate refugee” remains unrecognised in binding international law. It is a term Dr Yates has previously told RNZ was always flawed.
“Climate change is this unique phenomenon because what is forcing people out of their countries comes from elsewhere,” she said.
“At face value, the idea of being a refugee didn’t fit.”
Many communities suffering at the hands of climate change do not want to leave their home, their culture, their land, their community.
Dr Yates said the term “climate mobility” was a better fit — describing it as a spectrum that recognises the desire for communities to have options.
Australia’s Falepili Treaty v NZ’s climate pathways In late 2025, the first Tuvaluans began relocating to Australia under the Falepili Union, a bilateral treaty signed with Tuvalu in 2023.
The agreement creates a new permanent visa for up to 280 Tuvaluans each year, allocated by ballot. Applicants do not need a job offer, there is no age cap, nor disability exclusion.
The treaty has led debate on online platforms around why New Zealand does not offer a similar pathway.
Australia and Tuvalu signing the Falepili Union Treaty in Rarotonga in 2023. Image: Twitter.com/@PatConroy1/RNZ
International law expert Professor Jane McAdam is cautious against simplistic comparisons between New Zealand and Australia.
“It has been mislabelled in a lot of the international media as a climate refugee visa when it’s nothing of the sort,” Prof McAdam said.
“There’s often nothing in this visa that requires you to show that you’re concerned about the impacts of climate change in the future,” she said.
Professor McAdam pointed out that New Zealand had never been viewed as “totally useless” in climate-related migration of Pacific peoples.
“Historically, New Zealand has been seen as leading the way when it comes to providing pathways for people in the Pacific to move,” she said, noting the PAC visa and labour mobility schemes as examples.
“New Zealand has been leading the way globally in recognising how existing international refugee law and human rights work,” she added.
That includes influential tribunal decisions examining how climate impacts intersect with refugee and human rights law, even where claims ultimately failed.
New Zealand has been seen as leading the way when it comes to providing pathways for people in the Pacific to move, says Professor McAdams. Image: RNZ Pacific
In 2023, Pacific leaders endorsed the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, the first regional document to formally acknowledge climate-related migration and commit states to cooperate on safe and dignified pathways.
Dr Yates said New Zealand was “furiously involved” in shaping the framework.
“The framework is the first time, put down on paper, that people are migrating because of climate-related reasons,” she said.
However, the document is non-binding.
“It means our government is ready to take this seriously. But I wouldn’t say they are taking this seriously, yet.”
She added a dedicated, rights-based climate mobility visa is needed that can account for a wide-range of people, including those with disabilities and others disproportionately affected.
RNZ Pacific approached the Immigration Minister Erica Stanford’s office for comment on whether New Zealand immigration law does explicitly recognise climate change or climate-induced displacement as grounds for special protection or a dedicated visa category.
We were advised Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was the appropriate person to comment on the issue.
However, a spokesperson for Peters told RNZ Pacific the specific issue “would be a question for the Minister of Immigration, or the Climate Change Minister”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The place of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former prince and brother of the king, in the line of succession to the British throne appears to be under threat in the United Kingdom.
Currently, Mountbatten-Windsor is eighth in line (after the families of princes William and Harry) to the Crowns of the United Kingdom and Australia. This makes it extremely unlikely he would ever become monarch, but his removal is more a symbolic act of repudiation.
Is it possible to remove him? The short answer is yes – but it would most likely be a time-consuming process involving many parliaments passing legislation.
Does the same line of succession apply to the British and Australian Crowns?
At the time of Australia’s federation in 1901, the British Crown was described as “one and indivisible”. Queen Victoria exercised constitutional powers over all her colonies, acting on the advice of British ministers.
That changed after the first world war, due to a series of Imperial Conferences, with the self-governing “dominions” (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland) having separate Crowns by 1930. This meant the Australian prime minister could advise the monarch about the appointment of the governor-general of Australia and other federal (but not state) Australian matters.
However, the rules of succession to these separate Crowns remained the same. They are a hotch-potch of English laws, including common law rules of inheritance and statutes, such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701.
These laws became part of Australian law in the 18th century, but for a long time Australian parliaments had no power to alter them. This changed in 1931 with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. It gave the dominions power to repeal or alter British laws that applied in their country.
However, recognising this could cause havoc in relation to succession to the Crown, a clause was included in the preamble to the statute, making it a convention that “any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne” shall require the assent of the parliaments of all of the dominions and the United Kingdom. Section 4 of the statute continued the power of the UK parliament to legislate for a dominion, but only if it gave its request and consent.
In 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated, the UK parliament enacted a statute to alter the rules of succession to the throne, to exclude any children he might have. Australia assented to the British parliament extending its law so it applied to Australia too.
That option is no longer available since the enactment of section 1 of the Australia Act 1986. It says that no act of the UK parliament shall extend as part of the law of the Commonwealth, or a state or territory. Any changes made to the operation of the laws of succession to the Crown of Australia must be made in Australia.
[embedded content]
How could Australia change the law of succession?
When the Commonwealth Constitution was enacted, the Crown was still “one and indivisible”. This meant no one inserted a section giving the Commonwealth parliament power to make laws about succession to the Crown. However, the framers of the Constitution were clever enough to insert a mechanism to deal with such unanticipated developments.
Section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution says the Commonwealth parliament may exercise a power, at the request or with the concurrence of all the states directly concerned, which only the UK parliament could have exercised at the time of federation. This means the Commonwealth and state parliaments can cooperate to change the rules of succession to the Crown of Australia.
This issue arose in 2011, when the various realms (being countries that retained Queen Elizabeth II as head of state) agreed to change the rules of succession so that males would no longer be given preference over females, and heirs would no longer be disqualified for marrying a Catholic.
The UK parliament enacted the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 to give legal effect to this change. However, it delayed commencing the act until other realms had enacted their changes too. The British act only made the change with respect to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
The 2013 changes to the line of succession mean that Princess Charlotte is now third in line to the British throne.Dave Shopland/AP/AAP
Some realms accepted they needed to change the law in relation to their own Crown. Others concluded they didn’t need to act, because their Constitution makes their sovereign the same person who is king or queen of the United Kingdom. Legislation was ultimately enacted in Australia, Barbados, Canada, New Zealand, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
In Australia, each state enacted the Succession to the Crown Act 2015. The Australian process took a long time, due to different legislative priorities and sitting periods, and the intervention of state election periods.
Australia was the last to enact its law, after which the alteration in succession was brought into effect simultaneously across all the realms.
How would the process operate today?
If it were proposed to remove Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession today, the UK government would probably first seek the agreement of all the realms. While not legally necessary, it is important if a shared monarch is to be retained for all realms to be consulted.
The UK parliament would then prepare its own bill, providing a template for other jurisdictions. This means the changes are uniform across the realms. The bill would probably also specify whether Mountbatten-Windsor’s exclusion affects his heirs, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and their children. Under the old law, a person who married a Catholic was treated as “dead” for the purposes of succession, so that their exclusion from the succession did not affect the hereditary position of their heirs. The same approach might be taken in relation to the exclusion of Mountbatten-Windsor.
The same parliaments that enacted laws in relation to the last change of succession (apart from Barbados, which is now a republic), would also need to enact an equivalent law, if they wish to maintain symmetry in such rules across the realms. Putting such a bill before a parliament runs the risk that other issues will be raised, opening broader questions concerning the role of the monarchy in different realms.
Could Australia make such a change on its own?
While Australia could unilaterally enact a law to exclude Mountbatten–Windsor from succession to the Crown of Australia, it is unlikely it would do so. There are two reasons for this.
First, it involves a lot of legislative hassle, getting seven parliaments to enact a law that will probably have no substantive effect, given how far Mountbatten-Windsor is down the line of succession.
Second, covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution says that references to “the Queen” in the Constitution shall “extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.
There is considerable disagreement about whether this is just an interpretative provision about updating references, or whether it has a substantive effect.
Keeping Australia’s rules of succession in sync with those of the United Kingdom avoids opening that potential Pandora’s box.
The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office will heap yet more pressure on the beleaguered government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest over allegations he passed government documents to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein comes directly on the heels of the resignation of Peter Mandelson, Starmer’s ambassador to the United States, due to his own alleged associations with Epstein.
The fallout from the scandal is hugely damaging to public trust in both the political establishment and institutions in the United Kingdom, including the royal family.
Trust in the royals already declining
It’s hard to separate the fate and popularity of the royal family from the institutions of British governance because they’re very much part of it.
The monarchy, specifically the Crown, is part of the British constitution. The monarch gives assent to all legislation that’s passed by parliament (in other words, he or she has to sign it for it to pass). While that might seem like a rubber-stamping exercise and that the monarch is a mere symbol in British politics, King Charles and, in slightly different ways, Queen Elizabeth II certainly have had their political preferences.
And despite the impression you get during royal occasions like weddings, funerals and coronations, the royals don’t enjoy unanimous support in Britain. In fact, public support has been declining in recent years, especially among the young.
In an Ipsos survey released this week, just 47% of Britons said they had a favourable opinion of the royal family on the whole (a seven-point decline from November). And just 28% of Britons believe the royal family has handled the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor well, compared to 37% in November.
Importantly, there’s been a long-term trend of steady decline in support for the monarchy since 1983, when the British Social Attitudes survey first asked about this.
More broadly, and in common with many other liberal democracies, there is a pervasive sense the Epstein scandal is more evidence of the existence of a self-serving, corrupt elite making good for itself and harming others, while many people in the “left behind” and “squeezed middle” of society are struggling.
Politically, this perception adds further fuel to the notion that the inequality between the rulers and the ruled has become unjustifiable. Something has to change.
Pressure mounting on Labour
Starmer’s Labour government was already deeply unpopular before Mandelson’s alleged ties to Epstein were revealed. Now, it has entered some sort of permanent crisis mode.
Mandelson was one of the key figures behind the so-called “New Labour” project associated with the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1997–2007.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, right, talks with Britain’s ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, at the ambassador’s residence in Washington in February 2025.Carl Court/Pool Getty Images/AP
New Labour has a dual legacy in British politics. On one level, it was the most electorally successful Labour government ever. But that electoral success seemed to come at the expense of a clearly defined sense of what a Labour Party stood for. Key players like Mandelson courted wealthy backers and moved Labour to the centre of British politics to, not unreasonably, win elections.
As such, many Labour supporters started to drift away from the party and towards other, at times diametrically opposed, political parties. In Scotland, this benefited the pro-independence parties. In England, it benefitted the radical-right Reform UK.
Reform has precious little governing experience, but that is its appeal. Its radical messages are finding traction with a large number of voters, many of whom formerly supported Conservative or Labour.
So in this context, when Mandelson, an already divisive figure, was named ambassador to the US in the belief he could help manage President Donald Trump, Starmer’s political gamble to reinstate him to a public role backfired.
Reform could ultimately benefit
The British government’s travails represent another gilt-edged opportunity for Reform UK to capitalise on the unpopularity of Starmer, Labour and politics more broadly. But there is a risk for Reform, too.
Radical-right parties tend to place a great emphasis on the figure of the leader. For Reform UK, this is Nigel Farage.
Farage has had an incredible impact on British politics, especially since Brexit. But Farage, a former merchant banker, is also part of this global elite, despite pitching his politics at the “left behinds”. He has spent years courting Trump’s friendship. So, while there are no allegations against him related to Epstein, the public anger towards elites in general may eventually rebound on Farage, too.
Reform UK, however, is positioning itself successfully as an alternative to the two major parties in the UK, and could form a minority government at the next UK-wide elections in 2029.
The Conservative Party has shot its bolt as a result of its 14 years in government. And Labour came to power more as a rejection of the Conservatives than an endorsement of its policies. It has thus far excelled in failing to meet these low expectations, to Reform’s benefit.
Excluding a by-election in February, the first major political test will be local government elections in England, and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd in May. A poor Labour showing will quite possibly lead to a leadership challenge against Starmer, whose government seems incapable of stemming the rise of support for an emboldened Reform.
A boost to republicanism
“Unprecedented” is an over-worn term. However, the arrest of a member of the royal family is the first in England since 1647 (it didn’t end well).
Prince William is still very popular. But there could still be very serious consequences for support for the monarchy in the various nations of the United Kingdom.
There isn’t the same sort of support for republicanism in England as there is in Australia, where republicans can de-legitimnise the king as a “foreign” monarch. Although this argument is made by republicans in Northern Ireland, English republicanism needs to be driven by some other sentiment.
And the Epstein crisis could be it, given it is drawing attention to gross inequality and damaging entitlement. It’s hard to see where exactly all this will end up, but it is quite possible this will give the greatest boost to anti-monarchical sentiment in England for some centuries.
It is important not to forget the women and girls who were victims of this rich man’s cabal. Yet, one great harm of the Epstein scandal in Britain is the further damage done to trust in institutions of governance and the boost it provides for the illiberal critics of what seems like a decaying order.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on February 22, 2026.
Trump hikes global tariffs to 15% as the fallout from Supreme Court loss continues Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law and Taxation, Queensland University of Technology US President Donald Trump has announced the United States will increase baseline tariffs on all foreign imports to 15%, as the fallout continues from a seismic Supreme Court ruling on Friday. Trump had imposed sweeping
Activists tell of ‘apocalyptic’ ecocide on top of Israel’s Gaza genocide at rally Asia Pacific Report Two Extinction Rebellion activists joined the speakers today at an Auckland protest over Israel’s genocide and ecocide in Gaza and occupied Palestine, condemning the “apocalyptic” assault on both people and their living environment. Caril Cowan, a de facto coordinator of Extinction Rebellion Tāmaki Makaurau, spoke of the climate crisis this month in
Indonesia’s human rights law being revised under a global spotlight ANAYSIS: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta The global human rights landscape has witnessed a significant diplomatic milestone. Indonesia, for the first time since the body’s establishment in 2006, has officially taken the presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Indonesia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, is currently
US President Donald Trump has announced the United States will increase baseline tariffs on all foreign imports to 15%, as the fallout continues from a seismic Supreme Court ruling on Friday.
Trump had imposed sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” last year under an emergency powers act, but the court ruled this law did not authorise him to do so.
Speaking in the wake of the ruling on Friday, Trump admonished the justices of the Supreme Court. He called the democratic justices who ruled against the tariffs a “disgrace to the nation”.
He also said he felt “ashamed” of members of the court he considered conservative who had voted against his use of emergency powers.
Trump’s statement was riddled with insults and inaccuracies. However, he admitted he had tried to “make things simple” by using the emergency powers act. He went on to say he does have other options, but those options would take more time. This was one part of his speech that was indeed accurate.
With the clock already ticking on his landmark trade agenda, and the multi-billion dollar question of refunds looming, what might Trump do next? Here’s what could now be in store for both Australia and the world.
This part of the law has never been used. However, it appears to clearly allow the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%, and for a period of no more than 150 days.
This section does allow the President to impose tariffs in response to foreign countries who violate US rights under international trade agreements, or that burden or restrict US commerce in “unjustifiable”, “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” ways. However, it requires some steps to be followed.
The process for using this law is detailed and can not be subverted. It would likely take either years or vast amounts of resources to introduce tariffs that were anywhere near the “Liberation Day” tariffs.
If nothing else, it requires consultations with the countries upon whose goods those tariffs will be imposed.
Section 301 has previously been used to impose tariffs on China, following an investigation by the United States Trade Representative in 2018.
Another option
Another avenue for the president to bypass Congress is a specific section of a different law, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, that applies to a particular sector of the economy.
However, it can’t be used to recreate sweeping tariffs on all foreign imports. This provision is generally product-specific and requires an investigation into the national security threat.
Its use to impose steel and aluminium tariffs has been challenged by multiple trading partners at the World Trade Organization. A panel of experts ruled the US had used a special national security exception erroneously.
If all collected duties are refunded, it’s estimated the total repayment could reach approximately US$175 billion (A$247 billion).
Much to the president’s frustration, there was no clarity within the Supreme Court’s ruling on the process for refunds of illegally collected tariffs.
That silence, which prompted Trump to refer to the decision as “terrible” and “defective”, was likely because this would be handled by other courts.
Back in December, the US Court of International Trade stated it would have the authority to order reliquidation and refunds of the sweeping tariffs if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled them unlawful.
Many large companies had already anticipated this ruling, and acted to get on the front foot. For example, in late November, large retailer Costco sued the Trump administration to secure a full refund of tariffs in the event the Supreme Court deemed them unlawful.
In late December, faced with an avalanche of similar cases, the Court of International Trade temporarily halted all cases where companies were claiming relief from of IEEPA tariffs ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Refunds may not be straightforward
Some importers have argued that because the tariff payments were itemised, receiving refunds should not be messy.
But the process for refunds may not be as straightforward as it should be. Trump suggested they could be “in court for the next five years”.
What does this all mean for Australia?
Australia’s previous 10% rate was much lower than many other nations, but now at 15% the playing field has been levelled – at least for the next 150 days.
Australian exporters don’t pay these tariffs directly themselves, but may be pressured to absorb some of the cost, and it makes their imports less competitive in the US market.
However, not all Australian exporters are in the same position. The proclamation issued by the White House listed some exceptions, including beef, critical minerals, energy products and pharmaceuticals.
At Friday’s press conference, Trump said “great certainty” had been brought back to the United States and the world. In truth, the uncertainty is far from over.
Two Extinction Rebellion activists joined the speakers today at an Auckland protest over Israel’s genocide and ecocide in Gaza and occupied Palestine, condemning the “apocalyptic” assault on both people and their living environment.
Caril Cowan, a de facto coordinator of Extinction Rebellion Tāmaki Makaurau, spoke of the climate crisis this month in Aotearoa New Zealand to provide an insight into the Gaza emergency.
“One of our climate scientists, says this is normal – get used to it. We are going to have killing storms over, and over, and over …
“As we are saying, ‘We are all Palestine’, I just think of the people of South America, I think of the people of Africa, I think of Europe, where people are dying now because of the climate.
“They are dying of heat exhaustion, they are dying from floods, they are dying from landslides, like we have been having, not just a few. It’s happening. It is here now.”
After the rally, the protesters marched around the corner from Te Komititanga Square to the US Consulate in Auckland for a “Blood on your hands “ protest over the US role in funding and enabling Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.
Cowan was among those protesters who symbolically raised blood on their hands over the “shameful” US role under President Donald Trump and previous presidents.
Extension Rebellion speaker Caril Cowan . . . “people are dying now because of the climate crisis.” Image: APR
US pays part UN dues This week in Washington, a UN spokesperson said the United States had paid about US$160 million (NZ$268 million) of the more than US$4 billion it owes to the UN, just as Trump hosted the first meeting of his so-called “Board of Peace” initiative over Gaza that critics say could undermine the United Nations.
The US is the biggest contributor to the UN budget, but under the Trump administration it has refused to make mandatory payments to regular and peacekeeping budgets, and slashed voluntary funding to UN agencies with their own budgets.
Washington has also withdrawn from dozens of UN agencies.
Another speaker at today’s rally, Adam Jordan, from both Extinction Rebellion and the Palestinian movement, talked about the “connection” between the Gaza genocide and anthropogenic climate breakdown.
“As is so often the case with colonialism, and the capitalist system more generally, ecological destruction has always been inherent to the Zionist, settler-colonial project,” Jordan said.
Extension Rebellion’s Adam Jordan . . . the destruction in Gaza has reached such “apocalyptic proportions that the damage is visible from space”. Image: APR
“From contaminated soil and groundwater to decimated farmland and burning down centuries old olive groves that had been lovingly tended by countless generations of Palestinians.
“Rather than ‘making the desert bloom’ as they often claim, the colonisers are engaged in a process of ‘desertification’ — transforming once fertile and active farmland into an area devoid of both vegetation and biodiversity.”
Damage visible from space Jordan said that destruction of both people and the land itself in Gaza had reached such “apocalyptic proportions that the damage is visible from space”.
“The people who have not yet been killed by the bunker buster bombs, the forced starvation, disease, sniper fire and autonomous killer drones live in a wasteland of undrinkable water, unexploded munitions, overflowing landfills, contaminated soil and toxic debris, with orchards and fields reduced to dust in which life itself is being rendered impossible for the long term,” he said.
[embedded content] Gaza pollution environmental threats Video: Al Jazeera
“Ecocide here fuses with genocide in a manner never seen before.”
But where was the real connection between Palestine and the climate crisis?
“Despite all the rhetoric from governments and corporations about how they’re taking climate change seriously, the 2020s have so far seen an accelerated expansion of fossil fuel production, just when it had to be reined in and inverted into a sustained dismantling — for the world to avoid a warming of more than 2°C, and ideally no more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial baseline.
“Currently we’re at 1.6°C above that baseline, and this is already proving to be absolutely catastrophic. In fact it’s proving again and again to be deadly,” Jordan said.
“The destruction of Gaza is of course executed by tanks and fighter jets, sending their projectiles that turn everything into rubble — but only after the explosive force of fossil fuel combustion has put them on the right path.
“All these military vehicles run on oil. As do the supply flights from the US, UK and Germany.’
A young protester with a Palestinian flag at the Auckland rally today. Image: APR
Emissions burden One study had estimated that from October 2023 to January 2025 the emission burden of the Gaza genocide by Israel and the West to be 32 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
“That’s more than the annual emissions of many countries,” Jordan said.
“It has generated more than 36 million metric tonnes of debris from buildings being either severely damaged or completely destroyed. It would take as long as four decades to remove and process all of this debris.”
Jordan said what was happening in Gaza was not just a transnational effort, but “a stain on the so called ‘international law’ that cannot be washed clean”.
“For over two years now we have watched as the corrupt corporate media has dehumanised the victims and attempted to humanise those committing this genocide,” he said.
“We have watched as academic institutions, politicians and governments all over the world have denied or justified the unspeakable horrors taking place in Gaza, just as they deny the severity and the consequences of the climate crisis and justify the continuation of business as usual, no matter how destructive it is to our environmental life support systems.
“But this is just business, this is just how the capitalist system works. Both people and the environment are seen as expendable, here only for the purposes of wealth extraction by the ultra wealthy ruling class — or as I prefer to call them, ‘The Epstein class’.”
New flotilla plans Among other speakers, Rana Hamida spoke about the new Global Sumud Flotilla plans to break the military siege of Gaza in April.
The flotilla has announced plans to send more than 100 boats carrying up 1000 activists, including medics and war crimes investigators, to the besieged enclave.
Hamida appealed for more volunteers from New Zealand to join the fleet.
Not just climate change – but a “system change” call for action. Image: APR
The global human rights landscape has witnessed a significant diplomatic milestone.
Indonesia, for the first time since the body’s establishment in 2006, has officially taken the presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Indonesia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, is currently guiding the procedural and diplomatic course of the world’s foremost human rights forum for the coming year.
Indonesian Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai . . . seeking to ensure the revised law is “more progressive and advanced”. Image: Antara
This appointment, backed by consensus within the Asia-Pacific regional group and subsequently endorsed by the full council, is far more than a routine procedural rotation.
It is a mirror reflecting diplomatic success, yet also a fragile piñata — ready to spill forth either in praise or sharp criticism depending on the blows dealt by reality and unfolding dynamics.
This moment is not the end of a journey, but the opening of a new chapter rife with interpretation — a complex test of Indonesia’s credibility, capacity, and consistency on the stage of global issues.
The test begins not only in the halls of Geneva but simultaneously in the halls of power in Jakarta, where the government is pushing for the ratification of a revised Human Rights Law by this year.
This legislative endeavour has now become inextricably linked to the credibility of its international leadership.
Foundations and mandate To understand the seriousness of this position, one must look to its foundational pillars.
The UN Charter, as the supreme constitution of global governance, clearly places the promotion and respect for human rights as a central pillar for maintaining international peace and security.
This charter provides an undeniable moral and political mandate. Indonesia’s presidency, within this framework, is an operational instrument to realise the charter’s noble aims — a collective trust bestowed by the community of nations.
The Human Rights Council itself is a product of the post-Cold War collective consciousness and the failures of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Established by General Assembly Resolution 60/251, it was designed as a more legitimate intergovernmental body with a mandate to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights globally.
It is a space of often-tense dialogue, a tireless advocacy arena for civil society, and a stage where mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Special Procedures strive to illuminate dark corners of violations.
Within this complexity, the council president is not merely a passive moderator but a pacesetter, agenda-shaper, balance-keeper, and often a mediator in intricate political deadlocks. This position holds the key that can either unlock discussions on neglected issues or bury them in procedure.
The normative compass for the council is the International Bill of Human Rights — comprising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
These standards are the shared measure, the common language, and the basis for demands.
Indonesia’s leadership will be judged on its ability to advance the language and spirit of these covenants, not only within the halls of Geneva but also through their resonance and enactment at the national level. It is here that the ongoing revision of Indonesia’s own Human Rights Law (Law Number 30 of 1999) transforms from a domestic legislative process into a litmus test for its international posture.
Two sides of the coin Globally, this presidency represents the pinnacle of Indonesia’s soft power diplomacy. It affirms the image of a consequential developing nation deemed capable of leading even the most sensitive conversations.
It is an invaluable platform to voice Global South perspectives, emphasise the interdependence of civil-political and socio-economic rights, and champion dialogue over confrontation.
Indonesia has the opportunity to act as a bridge-builder, spanning the divides between West and East, North and South, in an increasingly polarised human rights discourse.
Yet, behind the stage lights, the shadows are long and critical. Organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have consistently warned that leadership on the council must align with tangible commitment.
They are watching closely: Will Indonesia use its influence to push for access by special mandate-holders to global conflict zones, or will it cloak inaction in the rhetoric of state sovereignty?
Will its voice be loud in highlighting violations in one region while falling silent on another due to geopolitical and geostrategic considerations?
Herein lies the ultimate credibility test. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) criticises Indonesia’s presidency, arguing it could swiftly become “hollow prestige” if seen merely as a product of regional rotation, not a recognition of substantive capability.
The ULMWP asserts that Indonesia is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations of a 60-year conflict in Papua, historical casualties, and comparing the situation to past international controversies.
They challenge Indonesia’s moral standing, citing unresolved historical allegations, internal displacement, and the long-standing refusal to grant access to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
This opposition underscores the profound domestic scrutiny the presidency faces: every action on the global stage will be measured against conditions in Papua, where critics describe ongoing tensions and demand immediate access for journalists and a UN visit.
The most profound implications may, in fact, unfold domestically. This presidency is a mirror forcibly held up to the nation itself. It creates unique political and moral pressure to address longstanding homework.
Issues such as freedom of expression, protection of minorities and vulnerable groups, law enforcement in cases of alleged violations, and the state of labour and environmental rights will come under a brighter international spotlight. Image: Laurens Ikinia/APR
Issues such as freedom of expression, protection of minorities and vulnerable groups, law enforcement in cases of alleged violations, and the state of labour and environmental rights will come under a brighter international spotlight.
In this context, the government’s move to revise the Human Rights Law is a direct response to this pressure.
Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai, in a meeting with Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR) on February 2, 2026, emphasised that the drafting process involves prominent national human rights figures — including Professor Jimly Asshiddiqie, Makarim Wibisono, Haris Azhar, Rocky Gerung, Ifdhal Kasim, and Roichatul Aswidah — to ensure the revised law is “more progressive and advanced”.
The government is targeting ratification in 2026, aiming to synchronise domestic legal progress with its international leadership year.
The government thus faces a stark choice: leverage this historic moment as a catalyst for deeper legal and institutional human rights reforms, open wider dialogue with civil society, and demonstrate tangible progress anchored in a stronger law; or, wield the position merely as a diplomatic shield to deflect criticism, content with symbolism over substance, even if that symbolism includes a newly passed but weakly implemented law.
The latter would be a damaging boomerang, deepening a crisis of trust both in the eyes of its own citizens and the global community.
Indonesian civil society, conversely, holds a golden opportunity. They now have a wider door to elevate domestic issues to the global forum, using their own nation’s presidential position as an accountability tool. The involvement of activists in the law revision process is a start, but the presidency must be seen not as the sole property of the government, but as a national asset to be filled with diverse and critical voices, both sweet and bitter, to ensure the promised progress is real.
Navigating the terrain A clear-eyed SWOT analysis is indispensable for Indonesia to strategically navigate its historic presidency of the UN Human Rights Council. This framework illuminates the internal and external factors that will define its tenure, balancing inherent advantages against palpable risks, all while the domestic reform clock ticks.
Strengths: Indonesia enters this role with a formidable diplomatic toolkit. Its long-standing tradition of “free and active” foreign policy has cultivated a wide non-aligned network and substantial credibility as an independent voice in the Global South.
As the world’s third-largest democracy, it offers a practical case study in balancing governance, diversity, and development. Furthermore, its soft power assets — embodied in the national motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) and its narrative of moderate Islam — provide unique cultural and religious leverage to mediate polarised debates on sensitive issues like religious freedom.
Operationally, the presidency itself confers significant agenda-setting power, allowing Indonesia to prioritise thematic issues such as the right to development, climate justice, and interfaith tolerance, while influencing the appointment of key human rights investigators.
The concurrent push for a progressive Human Rights Law revision can be framed as a strength, showcasing a commitment to aligning domestic norms with international aspirations.
Weaknesses: Indonesia’s most significant vulnerability remains the perceived gap between its international advocacy and its domestic human rights landscape. Longstanding, contentious issues — including restrictions on civil liberties, protections for minorities, and unresolved past alleged violations — provide immediate fodder for critics and undermine its moral authority.
This credibility deficit is a strategic weakness that adversaries will exploit. The revision of the Human Rights Law, if perceived as a rushed or cosmetic exercise to coincide with the presidency, could exacerbate this weakness rather than alleviate it.
Additionally, the technical and political capacity of its permanent mission in Geneva will be under immense strain, tested by the need to master complex procedural rules while managing intensely politicised negotiations among competing global blocs in real-time.
Opportunities: This presidency is an unparalleled platform for strategic nation-branding, casting Indonesia as a consensus-driven, responsible global leader. Domestically, it creates a powerful political catalyst to accelerate and deepen stalled legislative reforms.
The targeted 2026 ratification of the Human Rights Law is the prime opportunity; it must be used to revitalise national human rights institutions like the National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and pass long-delayed bills like the Domestic Workers Protection Bill.
Internationally, it offers the chance to operationalise its bridge-builder identity, mediating in protracted conflicts or humanitarian crises where dialogue has stalled, thereby translating diplomatic principle into tangible impact.
Successfully shepherding a meaningful domestic reform would give Indonesia undeniable moral currency in these international efforts.
Threats: The external environment is fraught with challenges. The council is often an arena for great power politicisation, where human rights issues are weaponised for geopolitical ends. Indonesia risks being ensnared in these zero-sum games, which could drain diplomatic capital and compromise its neutral stance.
Simultaneously, it faces relentless scrutiny from a vigilant transnational civil society and global media, ensuring that any perceived stagnation or regression at home — such as a watered-down Human Rights Law or continued restrictions in Papua — will trigger amplified criticism internationally.
The paramount threat, however, is the boomerang effect: that the heightened visibility of the presidency exponentially raises expectations, and the subsequent failure to demonstrate concrete progress — both in Geneva through effective leadership and in Jakarta through substantive reform—could severely damage Indonesia’s hard-won diplomatic reputation, leaving it weaker than before it assumed the chair.
Thus, Indonesia’s tenure will be a constant balancing act: leveraging its strengths to seize opportunities, while meticulously managing its weaknesses to mitigate existential threats.
The presidency is not merely a position of honour, but a high-stakes test of strategic foresight and authentic commitment, where domestic legislative action is now part of the international exam.
From symbol to substance: The path forward Indonesia’s election as the 2026 President of the UNHRC is an acknowledgment of its role and potential on the global stage. However, this acknowledgment comes as a loan of trust with very high interest: increased accountability and consistency.
The government’s own timeline, aiming to ratify a revised Human Rights Law within this same year, has voluntarily raised the stakes, tying its legacy directly to tangible domestic output.
This year of leadership is not a celebratory party, but a laboratory for authentic leadership. Its success will not be measured by the smoothness of procedural sessions or the number of meetings chaired.
It will be measured by the extent to which Indonesia can articulate and champion a vision of inclusive and just human rights globally, and — just as crucially — by the degree to which this office leaves a positive legacy for the advancement of human rights at home.
The revised Human Rights Law is poised to be the most visible component of that domestic legacy. Minister Pigai’s confidence in its progressiveness, bolstered by the involvement of respected figures, must translate into a law that meaningfully addresses past shortcomings and empowers institutions.
Indonesia stands at a crossroads. One path leads to transformative leadership, using this position to strengthen global norms while cleansing the domestic mirror through courageous reform and open engagement. The other leads to transactional leadership, leveraging prestige and a new but potentially inert law to impress without touching the core of the issues.
Indonesia’s choice will determine whether history records 2026 as the year Indonesia truly led the world on human rights by exemplifying the change it advocates, or merely performed a protocol duty on a stage where the lights are slowly fading on its credibility.
A historic mandate and its dual imperative This strategic position is a historic achievement, cementing the country’s role while presenting a real-time test of its global credibility. As a body of 47 member states, the UNHRC holds vital authority in investigating violations, conducting periodic reviews, and shaping international human rights norms. The Council President controls the agenda, guides dialogue, and, most importantly, builds consensus from diverse interests.
Indonesia is no newcomer, currently serving its sixth membership term and often as a Vice-President. Securing the top seat opens the chance to shift from “player” to “game-setter,” potentially shaping a more inclusive global human rights discourse.
This achievement is built on active diplomacy: vigorous economic and peace diplomacy (including Indonesia’s peacemaker initiatives), strengthened regional diplomacy emphasising ASEAN centrality and Global South solidarity, and a consistent multilateral commitment as a strong UN system supporter.
The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has affirmed its commitment to lead the council objectively, inclusively, and in a balanced manner. Potential agenda paths include advocating for contextualising human rights principles to be more sensitive to the historical, developmental, and socio-cultural contexts of developing nations; expanding the discourse to seriously discuss issues like corruption, environmental degradation, and electoral governance in the Council; and testing its bridge-builder capacity in acute conflicts, such as the Palestinian issue, by leading constructive diplomatic initiatives.
Ultimately, history will record not just the prestigious title of “UNHRC President,” but the substance and impact of the leadership. This position is a mirror: Is Indonesia ready to lead with consistency and firm moral principle, or will it become trapped in the contradiction between rhetoric in Geneva and reality at home?
The parallel process to revise the Human Rights Law is now part of that reflection. Its quality, its process, and its final enactment will be scrutinised as evidence of Indonesia’s sincerity.
True leadership will be measured by the courage to build bridges amid global divisions and the ability to connect words with concrete action and accountability domestically. The year 2026 will determine whether this moment is remembered as a renaissance of moral diplomacy, backed by genuine legal evolution at home, or merely a display window of symbolism where even new laws ring hollow.
The final word rests not on the title itself, but on the government’s collective actions in both the international arena and the national legislature. Success in this dual mission would add a brilliant and coherent achievement to the international record of the administration of President Prabowo Subianto and Vice-President Gibran Rakabuming Raka.
The choice — and the test — is in Indonesia’s hands.
Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta. He is also an honorary member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) in Aotearoa New Zealand.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on February 21, 2026.
Palau court denies Senate bid to stop US deportee deal RNZ Pacific Palau’s Supreme Court has denied an application by the Senate for a stay order on the government’s plan to take third country nationals deported from the United States. President Surangel Whipps’ has agreed for Palau to take up to 75 people, with the US to give Palau US$7.5 million in development funds. However,
Moana Maniapoto: The day we met Jesse Jackson – and why his words still matter COMMENTARY: By Moana Maniapoto Known globally as one of America’s most prominent and inspiring civil rights leaders, Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr twice ran for US president. He has died at 84. Throughout his lifetime, he fought to promote social justice, economic equality and political empowerment for marginalised communities — and worked hard to encourage voter
Why has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor been arrested, and what legal protections does the royal family have? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes after the US government released files that appeared to indicate he had shared official information with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey
Papuan activist Wenda accuses Jakarta of ‘lying’ over shot down plane Asia Pacific Report A West Papuan leader has accused the Indonesian government of lying over its operations and “masking” the military role of some civilian aircraft. Disputing an Indonesian government statement about reported that TPNPB fired upon an aircraft in Boven Digoel, killing both the pilot and copilot, United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP)
Could Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest bring down the British monarchy? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo Coghlan, Associate Professor, Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, University of New England When a royal faces scrutiny, it can feel like a rupture with tradition. Yet across the ages, British royals have repeatedly fallen under suspicion. What makes the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor so striking is
Wuthering Heights looks lush – but it’s a bad film and a worse adaptation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin D. Muir, Casual Academic, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney University Emily Brontë died of tuberculosis 177 years ago, yet this adaptation is still the worst thing that has ever happened to her. This is how one Letterbox’d user described writer-director Emerald Fennell’s film
A love letter to Country: grief, motherhood and loss in Jada Alberts’ Black Light Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Swain, Associate Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne This story oscillates and swells around a glass outdoor table, on the porch of a family home on Larrakia land. A table almost identical to the one on my porch back home. I point this out to
Is AI really ‘intelligent’? This philosopher says yes Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Goodall, Emeritus Professor, Writing and Society Research Centre, Western Sydney University Anyone who engages in serious dialogue with a Large Language Model (LLM) may get the impression they are interacting with an intelligence. But many experts in the field argue the impression is just that. In
Australia’s masculine policing culture is failing women and children Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Simpson, Associate Professor in Criminology, Macquarie University Australian policing has been in the spotlight in the past few weeks. There were concerning scenes in New South Wales during protests against Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit, while Queensland Police’s commitment to curtailing domestic and family violence was
Andrew’s arrest: will anything like this now happen in the US? Why hasn’t it so far? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University The stunning arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor by UK police on suspicion of misconduct in public office must have chilled many powerful American men to the bone. They may now wonder: could something like
