MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Newstead, Senior Lecturer in Management, University of Tasmania

Five years ago, as Australia burned through the catastrophic Black Summer bushfires, then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison was photographed relaxing on a Hawaiian beach.

When he returned, his now-infamous words – “I don’t hold a hose, mate” – epitomised a crisis leadership approach that came across as being built on detachment and dominance.

---

Read more:
‘I don’t hold a hose, mate’: Australia’s political history is full of gaffes. Here are some of the best (or worst)

---

Fast forward to January this year and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan is standing in fire-devastated Natimuk, announcing mental health support packages and expressing concern for traumatised livestock.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promises those affected: “we’ve got your back”.

Our new research suggests something is shifting with crisis leadership – although we still have a way to go.

This isn’t a story about men versus women leaders, nor Labor versus Liberal.

Rather, these contrasting responses reveal a tentative movement toward a more virtue-based approach that centres ethical considerations and away from the “strongman” prototype that has long dominated.

The masculine crisis leader prototype

Popular culture and much crisis leadership research have long celebrated a particular kind of leader in times of crisis: tough, decisive, emotionally detached and domineering.

Think of US President Donald Trump’s COVID response – confident, dismissive of experts and unmoved by growing death tolls – or former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famously tough “Iron Lady” approach to the Falklands War.

These leaders emphasise speed over deliberation, command over collaboration and displays of strength over expressions of care. It’s a style linked to ideals of masculinity that have shaped expectations for generations.

This prototype doesn’t just disadvantage leaders who don’t fit the mould (particularly women and those who embody characteristics culturally coded as feminine). It also sidesteps the deeply ethical nature of crises, where decisions about who gets help, who is protected and who bears the burden carry profound moral implications.

Morrison’s Black Summer response exemplified these failures. He appeared to many to demonstrate physical and emotional detachment rather than accountability.

His forced handshakes with devastated community members in Cobargo came across as performative dominance rather than genuine compassion.

His refusal to meet with former fire chiefs advocating for climate action risked being widely interpreted as a closed-minded approach.

The result? Communities felt abandoned precisely when they needed leadership most.

This pattern extends beyond any single leader or political party.

During Victoria’s COVID lockdowns, then-Premier Daniel Andrews was widely criticised for appearing to take a highly centralised, heavy-handed approach while appearing to lack empathy for what people were experiencing.

His leadership hinged on the command-and-control elements of the masculine prototype, even while working toward public health goals.

The 7 key virtues

Our research identifies how seven key virtues inform effective, ethical crisis leadership: courage, humanity, justice, prudence, temperance, transcendence and wisdom.

These virtues stem from the ancient philosophy of virtue ethics and are central to modern psychology and leadership development research.

By analysing 67 speeches given by heads of state, we identified the distinct role each virtue plays in crisis leadership and how their combined use offers a richer approach.

Different virtues serve distinct purposes in crisis leadership.

Leaders can showcase their own humanity, courage, wisdom and justice to build trust. They ask citizens to demonstrate temperance, humanity and wisdom to ensure cooperation. And they emphasise shared courage and transcendence to unite everyone in the belief the crisis can be overcome.

This approach offers a more effective way to lead – a shift we have seen hints of in the response to the natural disasters rocking Australia in the early months of 2026.

Let’s unpack these seven virtues:

Courage is increasingly framed as a collective attribute (we are courageous), rather than an individual one (he is courageous). Instead of awaiting a lone heroic strongman, the emphasis increasingly falls on communities’ collective resilience, even if traditional imagery of bravery still features prominently.

Humanity sits at the heart of current responses, encompassing empathy, care and compassion. Tangible responses include mental health support, concern for animal welfare and case workers to help navigate complex recovery needs. This isn’t “soft” leadership, it’s recognising that care for those suffering is foundational to effective crisis response.

Justice involves standing with communities, indicating accountability and ensuring everyone has support – even if the adequacy of that support remains contested.

Prudence (practical wisdom applied to difficult decisions) allows leaders to balance multiple perspectives and navigate complexity. While Morrison and many leaders in the past dismissed expert warnings about climate-intensified fire risk, current Australian leaders publicly reference the need to work with emergency services and consider multiple perspectives.

Temperance (encompassing humility, patience and restraint) remains the most tentatively expressed virtue in the face of current crises. While leaders avoid aggressive dismissiveness, there’s room for more explicit acknowledgement of the mistakes inevitably made under pressure.

Transcendence – our connection to the intangible – allows leaders to bolster a shared belief that crises can be overcome.

Wisdom allows crisis leaders to consider more holistic data and diverse perspectives.

What still holds us back – and where to next?

Despite these shifts, the masculine prototype remains powerful. Technical, rationalist language still dominates. Stoicism, decisiveness and firm command are still celebrated.

And other acts of virtue by local leaders which help address the crisis remain largely invisible, such as the grassroots organising and outreach activities that let people know others genuinely care.

The shift we’re seeing represents real but tentative progress.

To consolidate and extend the shift we need to educate leaders in how to practice virtue-based crisis leadership and move on from the outdated strongman approach.

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

– ref. Scott Morrison and Dan Andrews got it wrong. Here are 7 ways to get crisis leadership right – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-and-dan-andrews-got-it-wrong-here-are-7-ways-to-get-crisis-leadership-right-274017

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

I’ve seen some Australians expressing confusion as to whether or not they can still legally criticise Israel online after new “hate speech” laws were passed on Tuesday under the pretence of combatting “antisemitism”.

The answer is yes, and you definitely should keep opposing Israel and its genocidal atrocities.

I am worried that these new laws may indirectly have a bit of a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism due to Australians not understanding these new laws and what people are allowed to do without being jailed.

So let’s clear this up thoroughly so we’re all on the same page.

To be perfectly clear: it is still legal for Australians to oppose Israel and to associate with pro-Palestine groups – and we should. What’s changed is that now those groups can be classified as “hate groups” and banned, similarly to how Palestine Action has been banned in the UK.

But this hasn’t happened yet, and hopefully never will. We need to push for these new laws to be repealed, because they look guaranteed to be abused at some point in the future.

Repeal the Speech Suppression Laws | The Information Rights Project https://t.co/DsLIVJvGk4

— 💧Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) January 21, 2026

Know your rights, Australians:

It is still legal to criticise Israel. So we should criticise it as much as possible, because we don’t know how much longer we’ll have that right.

It is still legal to associate with pro-Palestine groups. So we should do so at every opportunity, because we don’t know when they’ll start listing them as “hate groups” and imprisoning anyone who continues to associate with them.

Unless you are in certain parts of Sydney while the post-Bondi protest ban remains in effect, it is presently fully legal to hold pro-Palestine marches. So attend as many as you are able, because you don’t know when they’ll be shut down altogether.

Oppose Israel’s abuses . . .                              Video: Caitlin Johnstone

It is still legal to say that Israel is a genocidal apartheid state, and to share information and opinions about its abuses. So we should do so as much as we can, because we don’t know when that right will be taken away.

It is still legal to state the fact that Zionism is a racist and murderous political ideology and that everything we’ve seen in Gaza is the result of Zionists getting everything they want. So we should say it frequently, because that right could vanish at any time.

It is still legal to say “Fuck Israel, free Palestine.” So we should say it loud and say it often, because we don’t know how much longer we’ll be allowed to do so without getting thrown into prison.

Fuck Israel, free Palestine. Say it loud and say it often, because you won’t have the right to say it much longer.

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) January 10, 2026

The Israel lobby is working frenetically to crush free speech in Australia, and the swamp monsters in Canberra are either actively facilitating this agenda or doing far too little to stop it.

The more aggressively they work to take away our right to oppose Israel, the more aggressively we need to oppose both them and Israel.

We’re not just fighting for Gaza anymore, we’re fighting for our own civil rights, and for our children, and for our grandchildren. They’re actively assaulting our ability to speak critically of power and make this nation a more tyrannical place.

The only appropriate response to this is ferocious defiance.

Our future depends on it.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murat Ungor, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Otago

Imagine investing in a premium Central Otago vineyard, or owning a slice of prime Wellington commercial property, all without needing millions in upfront capital.

Through asset “tokenisation”, this is becoming a reality.

Essentially, tokenisation converts physical and financial assets into digital records, called tokens, which are stored using blockchain technology.

Some tokens represent ownership in the way digital property titles or share certificates do. Others might be used for customer loyalty schemes, digital event tickets to prevent scalping, or a means to make fast, low-cost international payments.

The blockchain itself is basically a shared digital ledger distributed across computers, with transactions linked into a cryptographic chain. This decentralisation and transparency makes tokenisation both trustworthy and efficient.

Why tokenise assets?

For decades, investing in real-world assets has meant navigating lawyers, banks, brokers, registries, mountains of paperwork, hefty transaction costs and prohibitive minimum spends.

A $10 million commercial building, for example, might require investors to commit large proportions of the full amount, locking out all but the wealthiest buyers.

Tokenisation changes this equation for both buyers and sellers. That same building could be split into 100 digital tokens, each representing 1% ownership worth $100,000.

Like owning shares in a company, token holders benefit from rental income and property appreciation proportional to their stake. For sellers, it’s a way to raise capital by attracting many smaller investors rather than a few large ones.

Tokenisation is already happening

Digital assets are already woven into New Zealand’s economy. BlockchainNZ reports nearly NZ$8 billion of digital assets traded annually, with interest in digital assets becoming more common.

But New Zealand stands at an important juncture. Existing financial regulations weren’t designed with tokenisation in mind, meaning progress is slow and complex.

Industry bodies such as BlockchainNZ, the Banking Association and Payments NZ warn that even slight changes in a token’s features can alter its legal classification, making compliance confusing and expensive.

Without clear rules, New Zealand risks losing billions to overseas markets offering greater regulatory certainty.

Global momentum is undeniable

Executives from multinational investment company BlackRock have compared tokenisation today to the internet in 1996, something poised for explosive growth.

Accounting firm Deloitte projects US$4 trillion in global real estate will be tokenised by 2035, up from less than US$0.3 trillion in 2024.

In November 2025, Australia introduced legislation for digital asset platforms, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers citing potential annual gains of A$24 billion.

Dubai launched its first tokenised real estate platform in May 2025, projecting US$16 billion in value by 2033. J.P. Morgan Asset Management has launched MONY, a tokenised cash fund that invests in relatively safe short-term debt securities.

BlockChainNZ held New Zealand’s first real estate tokenisation forum in Auckland in July 2025. Industry analysis suggests tokenising just 2–3% of the domestic property market could unlock over NZ$60 billion in transaction volume.

New Zealand’s position

New Zealand has genuine advantages: internet penetration exceeds 95% of the population; it is a member of the intergovernmental Digital Nations coalition; and it operates an established digital land-title system, ideal for real estate tokenisation.

The regulatory conversation is underway, with the Financial Markets Authority releasing a discussion paper on tokenisation in September 2025.

But the Banking Association has identified a critical gap: while existing laws are technology-neutral, they lack clarity for tokenised products.

It recommends legislative reviews, controlled testing of tokenised financial products, and guidance for industry participants and consumers on regulation and compliance.

Ultimately, New Zealand will need a cohesive framework that actively enables safe innovation. As one industry insider has argued:

the rails for tokenisation are being laid now and if we don’t help build them, we’ll be forced to run on tracks designed by others.

Navigating the risks

Tokenisation also brings serious challenges. Local financial laws were written for paper certificates and bank vaults, not digital tokens and blockchain networks.

When an Auckland property developer tokenises an apartment building, or a Marlborough winery offers digital shares, which rules apply? Are these securities? Property titles? This uncertainty creates a compliance minefield.

Technology risks compound these problems: cybersecurity vulnerabilities, digital key theft or loss, bugs or flaws in blockchain code that hackers can exploit, and malfunctions in the technology infrastructure can all cause irreversible losses.

Energy-intensive blockchain systems raise environmental concerns, while weak consumer protections can expose users to fraud and scams.

Tokenised assets can be highly volatile, with rapid price swings encouraging speculation and panic selling. Easy round-the-clock trading amplifies boom-and-bust cycles. When everyone can trade with a few clicks, panic can spread rapidly.

The Financial Markets Authority has warned that market manipulation becomes easier across multiple unregulated platforms, money laundering may be harder to detect in cross-border transactions, and fraud (from fake tokenised assets to digital Ponzi schemes) can scale quickly.

None of this means tokenisation should (or can) be avoided. The challenge for New Zealand is to keep up with this form of financial innovation, and to retain investment dollars that might otherwise migrate to other jurisdictions.

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

– ref. Digital ‘tokenisation’ is reshaping the global financial industry. Is NZ ready? – https://theconversation.com/digital-tokenisation-is-reshaping-the-global-financial-industry-is-nz-ready-272427

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa A. Wheeler, Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University

In the modern workplace, flexible arrangements can be as important as salary for some. For many employees, flexibility is no longer a nice-to-have luxury. It has become a fundamental requirement for staying in the workforce, especially after COVID.

Reports – from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, professional services firm Aon and UNSW – indicate while a substantial number of workers prioritise flexibility, many of their requests are still being declined.

This leaves many employees with a stark choice: either conform to standard, rigid office hours or look for better conditions elsewhere.

The stakes of these negotiations are remarkably high. For the employee, a successful deal can mean the difference between professional growth and total burnout. For the employer, it is a major lever for retaining top talent.

Yet, many employees approach these conversations as simple “asks”, unaware that the success of their requests often hinge on invisible factors that have little to do with their actual job performance.

In our new research, published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, we wanted to provide an evidence base for how to negotiate for flexible work, so both employers and employees can benefit.

Request for approval

To understand why some flexible work requests are approved and others are rejected, we ran two studies with more than 300 participants.

Instead of asking people what they think influences flexible work approvals, we asked them to make real decisions on a series of requests presented to them.

To strengthen our findings, all participants had management experience.

In both studies, participants read short requests from hypothetical employees asking to work flexibly.

Each request was designed to look realistic, but was given a focus on one of four different things:

• caring responsibilities
• improved productivity
• greater wellbeing via work-life integration
• task completion instead of hours worked.

In the second study, we varied both the gender of the requester and how much flexibility they asked for: either two or four days working from home.

What we found

Across both studies, a clear pattern emerged. Requests related to caring responsibilities and improved productivity had the greatest success. Requests which focused on improved personal wellbeing or greater autonomy over their time were less successful.

However, contrary to what we expected, we found men and women were equally likely to be approved for flexible work.

This suggests that, at least at the approval stage, “gendered flexibility stigma”, or bias against workers (usually women) who access flexible work arrangements, may be less pronounced than earlier research has suggested.

Overall, we found managers have a clear preference for fewer days of flexible working. Requests for two days of flexible work were much more likely to be approved than requests for four days.

Some good news for parents

Remote work, normalised in the pandemic, allowed fathers to become more engaged in caring.

Our results indicate fathers won’t be penalised for asking for flexible work to provide care to their children. However, there’s an important caveat. While their requests were just as likely as women’s to be approved, our research cannot speak to the impact on men’s (or any workers’) careers after they take up flexible work.

The stigma against those who cannot be seen in the office or workplace – a perceived lack of commitment, judgements about decreased productivity, reduced likelihood of getting promoted – may still be present.

Other ways to make a strong case

Flexible work debates often focus on and even favour parents. That can leave non-parents with fewer options. Our research provides good news for those without caring responsibilities who still want to embrace the benefits of flexible work.

We found the business case was equally as effective as the child-care argument. Non-carers should strongly consider the mutual benefits to their employers and to themselves and be sure to make a strong case for how the company will reap the rewards.

For example, workers could highlight the possibility for increased productivity or fewer sick days.

Resources and tools are available to help employees construct their business cases, such as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s page on legal requirements in Australia and evidence for a business case.

What the law says

Anyone can ask for flexible working arrangements; your boss might say no, but it’s worth a shot. At a national level, in Australia where this study was conducted, employers cannot unreasonably refuse flexible working arrangements for people in certain circumstances, including those who have worked for the same employer for more than 12 months and who are:

• pregnant
• a person with disability
• have various caring responsibilities
• 55 or older
• experiencing family and domestic violence
• providing care for someone who is experiencing family and domestic violence.

Employers are legally required to respond to such flexible work requests in writing within 21 days, and make their approval decisions based on “reasonable business grounds”.

Room to make things fairer

Together, our findings show that flexible work is still not doled out fairly. Because these negotiations often occur on a one-on-one basis, they are highly susceptible to individual bias, favouritism, and assumptions about who deserves to work flexibly.

One factor outside an employee’s control is their manager’s attitude. Our research found managers who held positive views about flexible work were more likely to approve requests of any kind. Those with negative attitudes were more likely to say no, regardless of how the request was framed.

Ultimately, success depends on how the request is framed, how much flexibility is asked for, and who is making the decision.

Melissa Wheeler has engaged in paid and pro-bono consulting and research relating to issues of applied ethics and gender equality (including Our Watch, Queen Victoria Women’s Centre, VicHealth). She has previously worked for research centres that receive funding from several partner organisations in the private and public sector, including from the Victorian government. She holds a Board of Directors role with the Frankston Social Enterprise and Innovation Hub.

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

– ref. How to get managers to say yes to flexible work arrangements, according to new research – https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-managers-to-say-yes-to-flexible-work-arrangements-according-to-new-research-274008

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Upama Aich, Forrest Research Fellow, Centre for Evolutionary Biology, The University of Western Australia

“Size matters” sounds like a tabloid cliché, but for evolutionary biologists the size of the human penis is truly a puzzle.

Compared to other great apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, the human penis is longer and thicker than expected for a primate of our size.

If the primary role of a penis is simply to transfer sperm, why is the human penis so much larger than those of our closest relatives?

Our new study, published today in PLOS Biology, reveals a larger penis in humans serves two additional purposes: to attract mates and to threaten rivals.

Why so prominent?

Understanding why the human body looks the way it does is a popular topic in evolutionary biology. We already know that physical features like greater height and a more V-shaped torso increase a man’s sexual attractiveness.

But less is known about the effect of a larger penis. Humans walked upright long before the invention of clothing, which made the penis highly conspicuous to mates and rivals during most of our evolution.

Might this prominence have been selected for greater size?

Thirteen years ago, in a landmark study we presented women with life-sized projections of 343 videos of anatomically correct, 3D computer-generated male figures that varied in their height, shoulder-to-hip ratio (body shape), and penis size.

We found that women generally prefer taller men with broader shoulders and a larger penis.

That study made global headlines, but it only told half the story. In our new study we show that men also pay attention to penis size.

---

Read more:
Penis size may be driven by women (oh, and it matters)

---

A dual function?

In many species, traits that are more strongly expressed in males, like a lion’s mane or a deer’s antlers, serve two roles: they are attractive to females, and they signal fighting ability to males. Until now, we didn’t know if the human penis size might also serve such a dual function.

In the new study we confirmed our earlier finding that women find a larger penis more attractive. We then tested whether men also consider a rival with a larger penis as more attractive to women and, for the first time, we tried to determine if men treat a larger penis as a signal of a more dangerous opponent when it comes to a fight.

To find these answers, we showed more than 800 participants the 343 figures that varied in height, body shape and penis size. The participants viewed and rated a subset of these figures either in person as life-sized projections, or online where they were viewed on their own computer, tablet or phone.

We asked women to rate the figures’ sexual attractiveness; and we asked men to assess the figures as potential rivals, rating how physically threatening or sexually competitive each figure appeared.

What we discovered

For women, a larger penis, greater height, and a V-shaped upper body all increased a man’s attractiveness. However, there was a diminishing effect: beyond a certain point, further increase in penis size or height offered smaller returns.

The real revelation, however, came from the men. Men considered a larger penis as an indicator of a rival with both greater fighting ability and as a stronger sexual competitor. Males also rated taller figures with a more V-shaped torso in the same fashion.

However, in contrast to women, men consistently ranked males with ever more exaggerated traits as stronger sexual competitors, suggesting that men tend to overestimate the attractiveness of these characteristics to women.

We were surprised by the consistency of our findings. The ratings of the different figures yielded very similar conclusions regardless of whether participants viewed life-sized projections of the figures in person, or saw them on a smaller screen online.

Instant judgement – with limitations

It’s important to remember that the human penis primarily evolved for sperm transfer. Even so, our findings show it is also a biological signal.

We now have evidence that the evolution of penis size could have been partly driven by the sexual preferences of females, and as a signal of physical ability used by males.

Note, however, that the effect of penis size on attractiveness was four to seven times higher than its effect as a signal of fighting ability. This suggests that the enlarged penis in humans evolved more in response to its effect as a sexual ornament to attract females than as a badge of status for males, although it does both.

Interestingly, our study also highlighted a psychological quirk. We measured how quickly people rated these figures. Participants were significantly quicker to rate figures with a smaller penis, shorter height, and a less V-shaped upper body. This rapid response suggests that these traits are subconsciously almost instantly rated as less sexually attractive or physically threatening.

There are, of course, limitations to what our experiment reveals. We varied male height, penis size and body shape, but in the real world characteristics such as facial features and personality are also major factors in how we rate others. It remains to be seen how these factors interact.

Additionally, while our findings were robust across both males and females of various ethnicities, we acknowledge that cultural standards of masculinity vary across the world and change over time.

Upama Aich receives funding from the Forrest Research Foundation to be based at the University of Western Australia and received a Monash University Research Reactivation Grant to conduct the study.

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

– ref. Why are human penises so large? New evolutionary study finds two main reasons – https://theconversation.com/why-are-human-penises-so-large-new-evolutionary-study-finds-two-main-reasons-273365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Woods, Lecturer, Nursing, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University

Splinters are everyday injuries commonly involving a small shard of wood, glass, metal, plastic or a thorn that becomes embedded in the skin and the soft tissue underneath.

The outer skin layer, known as the epidermis, has a high level of pain receptors. The layer just underneath, called the dermis, has even more of them, potentially making such injuries very painful.

Knowing how to remove a splinter may not be a matter of life and death. However, good technique can relieve someone from ongoing pain or subsequent complications.

There’s little in the medical literature

Despite pain relief being an important topic in health care, splinters have drawn little academic interest.

In 2004, a team of clinicians wrote that “no controlled studies have been done comparing different techniques, leaving physicians to rely on anecdotal experiences”. A 2025 search of the medical literature on splinters only reveals a long stream of case studies and anecdotal evidence.

Online sites and TikTok videos are awash with “hacks” and tips that suggest using vinegar, duct tape, glue, onion slices and banana peels among other methods. There’s limited evidence to support or refute such practices, but some of them may cause irritation of the skin, or even allergic reactions.

Ultimately, you don’t need any hacks to remove splinters. Here’s how to do this correctly and safely – and when to seek medical advice.

First, where is the splinter?

The location of the splinter is the first triage point. If an eye or eyelid splinter is suspected, you should seek urgent medical care through a general practice, urgent care clinic or emergency department. Do not attempt to flush or irrigate your eye; this needs to be done by a health practitioner with sterile saline in a controlled environment.

Splinters stuck under a fingernail or toenail, known as subungual splinters, also often require surgical removal.

Second, what is the splinter made of?

The type of splinter can also determine if you need help from a medical professional.

Care needs to be taken with glass splinters as they can break off or shatter, leaving fragments that can be difficult to remove and may cause ongoing pain, inflammation or infection.

Outdoor splinters from wood, thorns or rusty metal can also be a source of tetanus and a tetanus vaccine booster may be required. People who are immunosuppressed or who have had lymph gland surgery should seek a medical appointment, as they may need antibiotics.

What you will need to remove the splinter

If none of the above apply and you can clearly see the splinter, the best way to approach removing it is with tweezers.

If the end of the splinter is near the surface, consider using a bevelled needle (available from chemists) to gently lift the top layer of skin to expose the splinter. Be careful not to enter deeper layers of skin as this will be painful.

Before attempting removal, if the splinter isn’t from wood, soaking the impacted area in warm water may help to soften the skin. Epsom salts, baking soda or hydrogen peroxide are sometimes recommended, but there’s no scientific evidence to support their use.

Don’t soak wood splinters, as this may cause the wood to swell and make it harder to pull out.

Steps for pulling out a splinter

1. Wash your hands with soap and water or use a hand sanitiser gel.

2. Sterilise the tweezers (and needle, if using) by rubbing or dipping the tips in the same sanitiser gel. Allow the tweezers to dry and do not place them back down before use.

3. If needed, use reading glasses to magnify the splinter. This will avoid bumping the splinter (further pain) and facilitate a good grip with the tweezers. For metal splinters only, consider using nail clippers to pinch the splinter for better grip.

4. Remove the splinter following the path of entry – pull it gently back from the direction it went in.

5. Once the splinter is removed, wash the area with soap and water or an antiseptic solution. Cleaning with alcohol-based hand gel may cause stinging.

6. If the wound is bleeding, cover with a plaster or small dressing.

For splinters close to the surface, you’ll likely be able to see if the whole splinter was removed. For splinters that penetrate at a steeper angle, it may be difficult to know if you got it all out. Deep splinters may even require medical diagnostic imaging to locate them.

After removing the splinter, monitor over the next few days for ongoing pain and signs of infection, such as redness, swelling, pain or discharge. Wound infections that are left untreated can lead to sepsis, a potentially life-threatening medical condition.

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

– ref. What’s the best way to remove a splinter? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-remove-a-splinter-268279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Sussan Ley may pay the price for the implosion of the Coalition, but the blame rests squarely with Nationals leader David Littleproud. He’s the one whose leadership should be on the line.

When you stand back from it, the behaviour of the Nationals has been extraordinary and, many would argue, reprehensible.

What was the issue the Nationals chose to make their stand on? It was the provision in the government’s legislation that will enable the banning of hate-spruiking groups, notably the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and neo-Nazi groups.

The Nationals said this was too broad, and endangered free speech. However important the principle of free speech is, dealing with these purveyors of hate outweighs it in this instance. Also, the measure as passed is surrounded by reasonable guardrails.

The Nationals’ claims they want radical Islamists dealt with are hollow when they oppose this measure – which is also attacked, it should be noted, by some on the progressive side of politics, in the name of free speech. The antisemitism issue has produced a convergence of sections of the right and the left, aligned against the pragmatic centre.

In the run up to the Coalition crisis, a Sunday night meeting of shadow cabinet, which included Littleproud, decided to seek changes to the hate crime legislation; on Monday the opposition obtained concessions from the government.

Ley says that was the proper end of the process, clearing the way for the opposition to support the bill, and therefore the Nationals frontbench senators who voted against it had broken shadow cabinet solidarity.

Littleproud argues there should have been further processes. He claims it was “persecution” to insist on the resignation of the three frontbenchers who voted against the bill, who were following the orders of their party room.

Regardless of the argument over process, Ley ended up with no choice but to discipline the three senators. Liberals (some with reservations) who had stayed in line with the decision to vote for the bill would have been appalled if their leader had then turned a blind eye to the Nationals’ action. That is especially the case given many of the Liberals are enduring blowback on social media for their stand.

Occupying the same kennel requires give and take. Liberals point out that some of their frontbenchers would have preferred to vote for the government’s gun reform bill. But they accommodated the Nationals, and their own rural members, by opposing it. There was no quid pro quo from the Nationals.

If Littleproud had wanted, he could have found a middle course over the hate-crime legislation, potentially avoiding a crisis: he could have had the Nationals abstain on the vote. That may perhaps have allowed a skate-through for both leaders. But Litteproud and his party chose to be as provocative as possible.

The Nationals showed poor judgement in deciding to oppose the legislation. Their subsequent breaking of the Coalition is a massive blow for an already enfeebled opposition. Moreover, Littleproud’s announcement on the day of national mourning over the Bondi massacre was completely tone deaf. Sources said Ley had counseled him all media should be paused for 24 hours, advice he did not take.

The Nationals are self-indulgent. They have become more overbearing in recent times, preempting the Liberals on the Voice and insisting they agree to demands after the election. Littleproud likes to point out the Liberals can’t reach government without them (which is true).

His lack of respect for Ley goes back a long way. In Thursday’s comments, he painted Ley as the villain in the crisis and declared, “Sussan Ley has put protecting her own leadership ahead of maintaining the Coalition”. He made it all as personal as possible, and essentially told the Liberals to get a new leader. “There is no [Nationals] shadow minister that wants to be ultimately serving in Sussan Ley’s shadow ministry,” he said.

But the Nationals are not just self-indulgent – they are deeply frightened. They’re spooked by the One Nation vote surge and the defection of Barnaby Joyce. The Newspoll published at the weekend had One Nation on 22%, with the Coalition 21%.

Given Joyce couldn’t lead the Nationals again, he is trying to make One Nation the replacement for his old party in regional Australia. He responded to the Littleproud announcement by saying:

David just hasn’t thought this through. It is going to be a cartwheel cluster. […] Maybe they’re on a recruitment drive for One Nation. Of course, it’s going to help us.

The Liberals are furious with Littleproud, and scathing in their personal descriptions of him. But that doesn’t mean they will stick by their leader, reluctant as some might be to appear to reward the Nationals, whose departure has left the official opposition with just 28 in the House of Representatives and forced Ley into yet another reshuffle.

Even before this crisis it was generally accepted Ley would not survive for long. This has made the prospect of her demise as leader even more likely, although the timing is uncertain. That could be influenced by the opinion polls to come.

But where do the Liberals turn? The alternatives, Andrew Hastie and Angus Taylor (who has been overseas and missed the crisis), are both deeply flawed as potential leaders. Taylor, though a conservative and a poor performer as shadow treasurer last term, may have more appeal to moderates who fear some of Hastie’s hard right views. But Hastie could appeal to the younger Liberals, looking for generational change.

To replace Ley, the Liberals first need to agree on a contender. If both Hastie and Taylor ran, and Ley (who doesn’t lack guts) contested too, she might come through the middle. That would just prolong the agony.

While timelines are totally unclear, this week’s events will trigger numbers-counting by supporters of the aspirants.

With little fix on what will or should happen now, or when the next eruption might come, many shell-shocked Liberals are comforting themselves by unloading their feelings about Littleproud and his band of bomb throwers.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Coalition split is massive blow for Ley but the fault lies with Littleproud – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-coalition-split-is-massive-blow-for-ley-but-the-fault-lies-with-littleproud-274027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Brannigan, Associate Professor, Theatre and Performance, UNSW Sydney

Of all the arts, dance has a special capacity to create worlds. Centred around the moving body, these worlds draw on other art forms – music, visual art, design, projection – to fill-out visions in time-space.

Dance at this year’s Sydney Festival ranged from a 20 minute, salon-style performance for two dancers, to an outdoor, multimedia, participatory sunset event with Sydney Harbour as a backdrop.

Garrigarrang Badu

Jannawi Dance Clan’s premiere of Garrigarrang Badu by Peta Strachan is the perfect work to orient audiences to the Dharug Country at the heart of Sydney Festival.

Jannawi is an all-female group with members from across the country who work collaboratively with artistic director Strachan, a Dharug woman of the Boorooberongal clan. Strachan’s role as a Dharug Knowledge Holder informs the language-revitalisation-in-action that grounds and filters through this work.

In this full-length dance work in local language, lyrics to a song-cycle by Matthew Doyle are linked to places, materials, costumes and objects that fill each dance in a series that flows.

In Dharug, garrigarrang means salt water and badu fresh water. The title speaks to where the two meet in our water systems at Sydney Harbour where we gather on the sweltering night of the performance.

The work is shaped around women’s knowledge, artisanship, music and movement. They present to us an intergenerational connection to land, water, sky and all that they hold.

To see this all female performance, intimately and proudly connected to Country, is a moving occasion. Dancers Dubs Yunupingu and Buia David are stand-outs as the central protagonists of the loose narrative.

Digging sticks, eel traps and Nawi (canoes) focus our attention on a skilful, ethical and balanced collaboration with resources. Alongside the ephemeral cultural materials of music and dance, the whole presents as a living archive of the Dharug people.

Strachan’s choreography, with co-credits for the cast, Albert David and Beau Dean Riley Smith, reflects influences from her time at NAISDA (Australia’s National Indigenous Dance College) and with Bangarra (2000–04), and as a cultural performer and teacher.

Low shuffling walks, softly curved spines and mimetic hand gestures are combined with contemporary elements such as barrel jumps and high-leg extensions, reminiscent of the Bangarra vocabulary.

Garabari

We later moved outside for Melbourne-based, Wiradjuri choreographer Joel Bray’s Garabari, one of Bray’s first full-length, ensemble works, following his earlier solo pieces.

He describes himself as a gay Indigenous man raised in a white Pentecostal home, training at both NAISDA and the West Australian Academy of Performing Arts, and with an international career as a dancer prior to his first solo choreographies.

Garabari was developed across multiple cultural and artistic encounters. Time as a performer and artist-in-resident with Chunky Move may have supported the lean into popular culture in his work. The movement language draws on traditional, contemporary and popular vocabularies with a formal or shaped-based quality that perhaps reflects ten years Bray spent dancing in Israel, where a certain modern aesthetic associated with Ohad Naharin’s Gaga technique dominates.

At a language workshop I attended, led Bray and his father Christopher Kirkbright, Bray explained how this work came about. Consultation with the Wiradjuri community in Wagga Wagga led to conversations with local Elder, the late Uncle James Ingram.

Ingram shared the story of the birth of the Murrumbidgee River with Bray, the greedy Goanna men thwarted by a heroine, Ballina, which forms the core narrative of the work.

Garabari begins with some words of welcome from Bray, explaining that the title of the show is an Anglicised Wiradjuri word for corrobboree.

As the sky darkens, we are led to the furthest boardwalk of the Opera House where the Harbour Bridge looms large. We move through a smoking ceremony and wander among quiet dancers in white on multiple open-air stages. We hear recounted stories and watch danced dramas.

Gradually we become part of a whirling human garabari, with music by Byron Scullin and projections by Katie Sfetkidis coming into their own. The crowd swarms and pulses under the dancers’ instructions.

Featuring excellent dancers such as Luke Currie-Richardson and Zoe Brown Holten, this is a work with an inclusive, celebratory and contemporary spirit.

Exxy

A few days later I am back at the house to enter another world – Dan Daw Creative Project’s Exxy.

Based in the United Kingdom, this disabled-led company’s model of “theatre, dance and activism” is connected to Australia’s Restless Dance company in Adelaide through Daw, an ex-performer in the company.

The suburban, slightly grimy and claustrophobic scenography becomes a platform for vibrant truth-telling and venting. Emotional charge and physical excess go head-to-head in this relentless work that ends with both performers and audience crying to The Power of Love.

In the opening scenes, Daw takes time to care for his audience and introduce his collaborators Tiiu Mortley, Sofia Valdiri and Joe Brown. This introduction gives little indication of what is to come.

Like Garabari, this work grows in complexity and mood as each artist on stage shares autobiographical snippets through word and action.

The performers tell stories of lying about sports injuries and offensive sexual encounters. They perform drooling, running under duress and shaking. These stories and actions are connected by a repeated skipping or tripping movement to create a circle of unity. Interspersed are solo dances of delicate devastation.

Daw dances high and light on his feet with arms reaching above and around him. Mortley maps dramatic shapes with her arms and torso. Brown repeats actions punishingly in response to commands from off-stage and Valdiri stims violently on the floor.

Saltbush – a plant that can thrive in the harshest environments – becomes a central metaphor in this work about being not only unapologetic about disability, but expressing it with relish, abandon and anger.

Save the Last Dance for Me

Two shows at Sydney Town Hall in the Vestibule Room top off the dance program with lessons in refinement.

Italian choreographer Alessandro Sciarroni’s Save the Last Dance for Me is a 20 minute piece of perfection.

Dancers Gianmaria Borzillo and Giovanfrancesco Giannini, simply with a sound score and stylish outfits, perform a dance from the early 20th century Bologna called Polka Chinata.

Recently rediscovered by Italian dance historians, like the Argentinian tango Polka Chinata is a male social dance form created to seduce a female audience.

Sciarroni simply adds a contemporary frame and the dance does the rest. It is intense, virtuosic and sexy.

Echo Mapping

Azzam Mohammed has emerged from the hip hop community in Sydney, winning competitive events and performing in Nick Power’s contemporary-street dance works.

A recent Sydney Festival staple, his new collaboration with composer and artist Jack Prest is Echo Mapping.

This pared-back duet is mesmerising. Mohammed, trance-like, summons movement and vocalisations that shift across Africanist angular static forms, percussive geometric patterning and echoes of the most recent iteration of this deep lineage in the popping and locking that Mohammed excels in.

The music-dance dialogue between the two artists matches yearning trumpet calls to melodic cries and drum beats to looping running steps.

The perfect venue for this intimate spectacle.

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

– ref. From grand harbour spectacular to intimate perfection: the varied dance at Sydney Festival 2026 – https://theconversation.com/from-grand-harbour-spectacular-to-intimate-perfection-the-varied-dance-at-sydney-festival-2026-273459

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Botterill, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The short-lived split between the Nationals and the Liberal Party after last year’s election has been followed by another breakup less than nine months later.

The Nationals are publicly stating they cannot work under Sussan Ley’s leadership. Provided there’s no rekindling of the relationship, this is the end of a coalition arrangement that’s survived for more than a century, albeit with the occasional hiccup.

As dramatic as this seems, it’s not the first time it has happened. Earle Page resigned as leader of the (then) Country Party in 1939 because he could not work under Liberal prime minister Robert Menzies, leading to a temporary breakup.

Even earlier, the Country Party made it a condition of establishing the first Coalition that Prime Minister Billy Hughes be replaced by the Nationalist Party’s Stanley Bruce.

But this time, the Nationals are much weaker than they were in the past. Facing perceived political threats from One Nation and a revolving door of leaders in the past decade, the party may benefit from some time to regroup.

Access to power

The Country Party emerged as a rural counterweight to the perceived urban bias of the other political parties in the first quarter of the 20th century.

In a clear statement of independence, the Country Party’s first federal leader, William McWilliams told the parliament in March 1920 the party was not seeking any alliances or “collusion”. It would steer its own course.

This, however, did not last long. The Coalition has been a consistent feature of the political landscape since 1923.

The Country Party, which would go on to become the National Party, is Australia’s second oldest, after Labor. Because of the coalition arrangement, it has been in government more often than not over that period. As a result, the party has wielded policy power arguably out of proportion to the number of votes it attracts.

The Liberal National Party arrangement in Queensland aside, the Nationals have resisted calls for the parties to amalgamate. Both the Liberals and the Nationals have benefited from the coalition.

The Liberals have relied on National Party numbers on all but two occasions to form government. Meanwhile, the Nationals have gained access to key cabinet posts of importance to rural Australia, such as trade and commerce.

Particularly under John “Black Jack” McEwen – who had a brief prime ministerial stint in the 1960s – the party wielded real influence over Australia’s economic policy direction. For instance, he drove the negotiation of a trade agreement with Japan. More broadly, McEwen successfully pushed for tariff protection for Australia’s manufacturing industries.

Over the years, the Nationals have crossed the floor over tariff policy, the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board and other issues of direct concern to the party’s constituency.

Each time, these events have highlighted something that many tend to forget: the Coalition was never one party, but two distinctly different ones, with different constituencies and often different priorities.

History repeating

The events of this week are also not the first time the parties have disagreed while in opposition, with the Liberals supporting a Labor government bill and the Nationals voting against it.

In 1973, the Nationals opposed the Whitlam government’s Industries Assistance Commission Bill. They argued the commission (the predecessor to the Productivity Commission) would introduce central planning by stealth and “be usurping the functions of many government departments”.

But there’s an important difference. Between 1972 and 1974, the then Country Party and the Liberals were not in coalition. They did not re-form the Coalition after Labor won the 1972 election. In the interim, both parties were free to vote in parliament in line with their own policies.

Why stay together?

While coalition makes sense to form government, the persistence of the arrangement when in opposition is more perplexing.

The Liberal-National Party Coalition is a very peculiar beast. It’s unlike any coalition arrangement anywhere in the world. Elsewhere, minor parties come together only after an election and negotiate a way to form government.

The apparent permanence of the Australian arrangements has contributed to the current unedifying situation. There is no reason why two different political parties in opposition would agree with one another on everything and vote accordingly in parliament.

The crisis here is a direct result of the two parties, largely for historical reasons, persisting with an uncomfortable coalition that is not necessary while they are in opposition, as was demonstrated between 1972 and 1974.

And over the past four decades, the Nationals have faced a different Australia from the one in which McEwen was so influential. The deregulation of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s, which included reduced support for the agricultural sector, put the Nationals on the back foot in policy terms.

---

Read more:
Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley

---

Rather than being the driver of pro-rural policies, they were defending Coalition policies their supporters disliked. Gun reforms introduced after the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996 is a case in point. Nationals leader Tim Fischer played a central role in supporting Liberal Prime Minister John Howard’s position.

It’s left the Nationals in a weaker electoral position over time. In the current parliament, Labor and the Liberals (including Liberal-aligned Liberal National Party members) each hold more rural seats than the Nationals. Ironically, given recent events, Tim Fischer’s old seat is now held by Ley.

There’s also the rural independents, making inroads into former National Party strongholds.

Depending on what recommendations are in the currently unpublished report into the Liberals’ performance at the 2025 election, the Nationals may find that this time, the Liberals will decide the coalition agreement is not worth the grief while in opposition.

A break would provide Sussan Ley and her team with the opportunity to reassess their party’s values and rebuild in a way that improves their chances of picking up the urban seats they so desperately need to form government. They may conclude this is easier to do without the Nationals.

Linda Botterill has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Instead of a marriage, the Coalition should be an on-again, off-again affair – https://theconversation.com/instead-of-a-marriage-the-coalition-should-be-an-on-again-off-again-affair-274105

COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell

On 14 December 2025, a father and son, reportedly linked to the ISIS clerical fascist organisation, committed a murderous attack on innocent participants at a Jewish celebration on Sydney’s famous Bondi Beach. Fifteen were killed and around 40 seriously injured.

There is no way this horrific event can be minimised. It was murderous, it was antisemitic, the victims and their loved ones were completely innocent.

It also can’t be remotely justified by Israel’s genocide in Gaza and increasing repression on the West Bank.

Nor did it in anyway serve the interests of Palestinians and their fight for peace and self-determination — if anything it gave “pro-genociders” a deceitful propaganda weapon.

Extraordinary heroism also powerful message of interfaith kindness
There is no “notwithstanding high point” in this murderous tragedy. But there was much heroism.

Understandably the overwhelming impact of the sheer horror of the slaughter meant that this was not reported as much as it deserved.

But prominent was the extraordinary courage of Ahmed al-Ahmed who wrestled the gun from one of the attackers and was severely wounded — being shot five times — as a result.

His extraordinary courage was covered by The Guardian (29 December 29): Saving lives at Bondi Beach.

Ahmed al-Ahmed is an Australian of Syrian origin. He is also Muslim. His bravery saved many Jewish lives.

Sickening contrast
This makes the sickening response of the Israeli government even more deplorable. It attempted to blame the terrorist attack on the Palestinian resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing and genocide, and to opponents of this warmongering.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu even went so far as to dishonestly claim Australia’s recognition of Palestine as a state was to blame.

Two newspaper opinion pieces from New Zealanders who deny the reality of ethnic cleansing and genocide by Israel repeat this disgraceful “blame Palestinians” response.

The first was by Deborah Hart, chair of the Holocaust Foundation New Zealand. Her paywalled piece was published by The New Zealand Herald (December 15): Never again.

The second was by Juliet Moses, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council. Her piece was published by Stuff (December 17): New Zealand should pay attention.

While both justifiably describe the horrific nature of the slaughter, they also reiterated the above-mentioned theme of the Israeli government thereby whitewashing its ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The fact that they both write in a softer, non-brazen and more subtle style does not diminish this observation.

The heroic Ahmed al-Ahmed is similarly whitewashed presumably because the heroism of a Muslim is considered inconsistent with Israel’s unconscionable narrative.

The implied narrative of Hart and Moses is that the life of an Israeli trumps the life of a Palestinian — including a child — and the right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

Further, Palestinian refusal to accept this narrative is consequentially responsible in some way for the Bondi Beach slaughter.

It is bad enough to hold this position; it is even worse to tar the Bondi victims with this same brush.

An aside: Jewish exceptionalism
As an aside, this narrative is reinforced by a Zionist claim of Jewish exceptionalism that is used to justify an untenable position that granting equal rights to others in Israel would be “tantamount to suicide.”

This exceptionalism argument is effectively rebutted by a paywalled article by Peter Beinart in the October 2025 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique: Jewish exceptionalism not so exceptional.

Beinart points out that the past experiences of South Africa, Northern Ireland and the American South where “. . . time and again dominant groups have loudly claimed that granting equal rights would be tantamount to suicide . . .” were always wrong.

Getting it right
On December 17, the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) released a public condemnation of the Bondi Beach atrocity.

It was appalled by the antisemitic terror attack, sided with the Jewish community, and acknowledged that for more than two years it had marched with Jews and Jewish groups against the genocide in Gaza.

Further, it criticised the use of the Bondi Beach slaughter by Benjamin Netanyahu and others to condemn and blame Palestinians and others for opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

For completion, the statement from national co-chair John Minto is published below:

“PSNA was appalled and shocked at Sunday’s antisemitic terror attack targeting the Jewish community in Australia on the first day of the celebration of Hanukkah.

“The best antidote to race hatred is community solidarity and we stand with the Jewish community in the face of such horror.

“For many decades, and the past two years in particular, we have protested and marched side by side with Jews and Jewish groups to condemn the genocide in Gaza and stand with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation.

“We have always made clear our campaign targets Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. Jews are not responsible for these policies, despite Netanyahu claiming he is acting and speaking as ‘Prime Minister’ of all Jews.

“Palestine supporters were also appalled when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and leaders of the pro-Israeli lobby in Australia and New Zealand, tried to exploit the horror in Bondi by blaming it on condemnation of Israel’s genocide and the Australian government’s (largely non-existent) support for Palestinian rights.

“This blaming almost invariably comes from people who support Israel’s actions in Gaza. Their strategy is to exploit the killing in Bondi to help the Israel government carry on its genocide and ethnic cleansing without criticism.”

“We are concerned that the strategy will cross the Tasman to panic the New Zealand government into introducing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism into New Zealand legislation.

“This definition is used to target people supporting Palestine. The Israeli government has managed to get it into government legislation, university rules and local government policy in many parts of the Western world.”

“It’s all part of Netanyahu’s ‘Eighth Front’ to silence Israel’s critics.

“It has no place here.”

Apart from agreeing with it, there is nothing I could say that could add to its persuasive and powerful message. It speaks for itself.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch

The Paris-based global media freedom group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the guilty verdict against Filipino journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio whose case has been challenged since her arrest almost six years ago.

Cumpio was found guilty today on a charge of “financing terrorism” in the Philippines, and now faces a sentence of between 12 and 18 years in prison.

RSF released a statement condemning the verdict and questioning the Philippines government’s commitment to a free press.

“We are appalled by this verdict. Three RSF investigations and evidence presented in court by Frenchie Mae Cumpio’s lawyers clearly show how fabricated this case has been from the very beginning,” said RSF Asia-Pacific Bureau advocacy manager Aleksandra Bielakowska
in the statement in Taipei today.

Local and international groups have condemned the conviction of 26-year-old community journalist Cumpio, saying it sends a “chilling message” to media, activists, and even ordinary people in the Philippines, reports Rappler.

“Frenchie Mae Cumpio’s conviction represents a devastating failure on the part of the Philippine justice system and the authorities’ blatant disregard for press freedom,” said Bielakowska.

“The Philippines should serve as an international example of protecting media freedom — not a perpetrator that red-tags, prosecutes and imprisons journalists simply for doing their work.

‘Highlights systemic issues’
“This sentence only highlights the systemic issues in the country and the urgent need for comprehensive reforms.

“We renew our call on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to act without delay to end this injustice and release Frenchie Mae Cumpio immediately.

“Without his decisive action, there will be no meaningful difference from previous administrations that showed no regard for upholding a free press.”

Committee to Protect Journalists Asia-Pacific director Beh Lih Yi said the court ruling was “absurd” and that the promises made by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to uphold press freedom were “nothing but empty talk”.

She added that the Philippines must stop criminalising journalists.

According to the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index, the Philippines is 116th out of 180 countries surveyed.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on January 22, 2026.

Trump sows ‘chaotic cruelty’ while Canadian PM Carney reminds the world it doesn’t have to play along
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University In what has become a familiar, exhausting cycle, the rest of the world is left with the futile task of trying to dredge meaning from the wreckage left behind by US President Donald

The United States’ new military strategy is a case of ‘AI peacocking’
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University The United States is set to become “the world’s undisputed [artificial intelligence-enabled] fighting force”. At least that’s the view of the country’s Department of War, which earlier this month released a new strategy to accelerate the deployment

Pro-independence FLNKS ‘unequivocally’ reject latest agreement for New Caledonia
By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk The signing of a new agreement on New Caledonia’s political and financial future has triggered a fresh wave of reactions from across the French territory’s political chessboard. The Elysée-Oudinot agreement was signed on Monday, January 19, in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron as well

Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal Coalition is dead, with Nationals leader David Littleproud on Thursday morning declaring it “untenable” after Liberal leader Sussan Ley stared down the Liberals’ minor partner. This followed all Nationals frontbenchers resigning from the shadow ministry on Wednesday night,

Australia’s frightening new ‘hate speech’ laws are clearly aimed at pro-Palestine groups
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone Australia’s Labor government has successfully passed a “hate speech” bill that’s plainly aimed, at least in part, at suppressing pro-Palestine organizations as “hate groups”. Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the new laws, saying their extremely vague wording, lack of procedural fairness and low thresholds for implementation mean groups

Beneath Antarctica’s largest ice shelf, a hidden ocean is revealing its secrets
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Stevens, Professor in Ocean Physics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Stevens/NIWA/K061, CC BY-NC-ND Beneath Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf lies one of the least measured oceans on Earth – a vast, dark cavity roughly twice the volume of

Shakespeare reinvented: how Chloé Zhao blends East and West philosophies in Hamnet
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, Adjunct Fellow in Communication, Media and Film Studies, Adelaide University Agata Grzybowska © 2025 Focus Features In Hamnet, Agnes Hathaway (Jessie Buckley) asks William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) to introduce himself by telling her a story. It is her way of seeing who this man really

NZ is again being soaked this summer – record ocean heat helps explain it
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Scholar, NCAR; Affiliate Faculty, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Sanka Vidanagama/Getty Images For many people this summer – especially those across Northland Auckland and Coromandel – showery days and bursts of heavy rain have become all too familiar. This week, fresh downpours on

Humanity’s oldest known cave art has been discovered in Sulawesi
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxime Aubert, Professor of Archaeological Science, Griffith University Supplied When we think of the world’s oldest art, Europe usually comes to mind, with famous cave paintings in France and Spain often seen as evidence this was the birthplace of symbolic human culture. But new evidence from Indonesia

View from The Hill: Coalition crisis explodes after Sussan Ley wields the whip against defiant Nationals
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal Coalition was imploding on Wednesday night, with all Nationals frontbenchers, including leader David Littleproud, quitting the shadow ministry. They were retaliating against Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s insistence three Nationals senators must resign for defying shadow cabinet solidarity. The

Grains of sand prove people – not glaciers – transported Stonehenge rocks
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Clarke, Research Associate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University Ask people how Stonehenge was built and you’ll hear stories of sledges, ropes, boats and sheer human determination to haul stones from across Britain to Salisbury Plain, in south-west England. Others might mention giants, wizards,

Provocateur attacks Australian Palestine peace activists protesting over Gaza genocide
By Sarah Hathway in Djilang/Geelong A group of Australian Palestine supporters in the state of Victoria have been attacked as tensions continue over the right to protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza in the wake of the Bondi massacre last month. As Geelong and Victoria Southwest branch members of Independent Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) were

Hate crime laws may have unintended consequences – including chilling free speech
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney What impact will the criminal hate provisions in the Albanese government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 have on the ability of ordinary Australians to protest? An earlier version contained a criminal offence of promoting or

As Trump’s threats over Greenland escalate, will Europe use its ‘trade bazooka’?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong The renewed campaign by United States President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland has escalated, with tariff threats against European allies. Asked on Tuesday how far he is willing to

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

High Seas Treaty welcome news for SPREP in uncertain times
By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor In an otherwise mixed month for the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), its leadership is hailing a win for Pacific conservation efforts with the UN Treaty on the High Seas coming into effect. The legally binding UN High Seas Treaty officially received more than 60 ratifications, and following

Keith Rankin Analysis – Greenland: National Politics versus Geopolitics
Analysis by Keith Rankin, 21 January 2026 Truth in world affairs is not a single expert-narrated story. National Politics In our ‘official’ ‘United Nations’ world – the world referenced by the expression the international rules-based order – there are about 200 sovereign nation states (ie ‘countries’) which are equal members of the global community of

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

In what has become a familiar, exhausting cycle, the rest of the world is left with the futile task of trying to dredge meaning from the wreckage left behind by US President Donald Trump.

As Trump departed the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, much was made of the content of his rambling, hour-long speech because the president had so escalated his rhetoric over Greenland.

Trump had said the United States would take the semi-autonomous Danish territory “whether they like it or not”. He had threatened direct tariffs on NATO allies that opposed him. Europe was considering reciprocal tariffs and had even gotten to the point of sending troops to Greenland as a demonstration of resolve.

NATO itself seemed on the verge of collapse.

While some analysis suggests a reprieve, there is no permanence to Trump’s statements. This president plays with lives, and the future of entire countries, with no care for the consequences.

‘Big, beautiful piece of ice’

Those who seek clarity in the chaos may have been relieved to hear the president make what may seem, on the face of it, a definitive statement of his position on Greenland:

I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.

That may well seem a clear statement of intent. But attempting to impose clarity by stripping sentences of their context risks dramatically misinterpreting that intent.

Even the sentences around this one hint that Trump has far from given up on acquiring that “big, beautiful piece of ice”.

In a speech riddled with inaccuracies, the president continued:

All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland. Where were we already had it as a trustee but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others in World War Two. We gave it back to them. We were a powerful force then, but we are a much more powerful force now.

Never mind that Greenland was never the US’ to “give” or “take” back – this is a president who has long demonstrated himself impervious to fact checking.

Trump went on to describe, in detail, his plan to build new battleships for the US Navy. The implication is fairly straightforward. Trump’s United States may not have to use force, but it can if it wants to.

Be grateful, or else

In this same section of the speech, Trump fell back on a familiar theme – that the US bears all the burden of global security, with none of the benefits. As he put it,

We’ve never gotten anything except we pay for NATO.

(Never mind the hundreds of NATO troops who died fighting with the Americans in Afghanistan after September 11, the only time Article 5 of the NATO alliance has been invoked).

That Trumpian resentment was only fuelled, unsurprisingly, by a striking speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney’s excoriation of the Trump administration’s attacks on the world order was unlikely to be met with anything else from Trump.

Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also. But they’re not. I watched their prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful, they should be grateful to us. Canada, Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that Mark [Carney], the next time you make your statements.

The Trump administration is seeking “ownership” of the western hemisphere – that is, all of the continents of north and south America and surrounds. By implication, that leaves the other hemispheres to other great powers and strongmen, with whom Trump “has always had a very good relationship”.

This is the violent world Trump wants to create – a world divided into fiefdoms run by Mafia-style bosses paid simpering tributes by their weaker supplicants.

The rhetoric of white supremacy

Trump went to Europe to give a speech dripping with disdain for the people who live there. In contrast to those leaders with whom he has a “great relationship” (Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un, et al), the Trump administration sees Europe and European leaders not just as weak, but as responsible for the demise of western civilisation – something only he can reverse.

After a racist rant directed at Somali immigrants, Trump claimed:

The explosion of prosperity and conclusion and progress that built the West did not come from our tax codes. It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common.

Trump’s talk of inheritance, of his pure European bloodlines, of the “mass import of foreign cultures” reveal, once again, the ideological drive behind his administration and its attempt to radically remake not just the US but the world.

While the president may have softened his rhetoric on Greenland specifically, this drive is a constant for the administration.

Live the truth

This is why Carney’s speech was so striking. It identified, in clear language, the truth of what the Trump administration is doing.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Trump may have temporarily “backed down” on Greenland, but as Carney put it, the “rupture in the world order” cannot be undone. But what comes next is not inevitable, and it does not have to be left up to Trump.

Carney’s speech is a clear indication that while the American president will not break his constant cycle of chaotic cruelty, the rest of the world may be attempting to step outside it.

There is meaning in that.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Trump sows ‘chaotic cruelty’ while Canadian PM Carney reminds the world it doesn’t have to play along – https://theconversation.com/trump-sows-chaotic-cruelty-while-canadian-pm-carney-reminds-the-world-it-doesnt-have-to-play-along-274099