Australia’s plan to recruit from Papua New Guinea for its Defence Force raises “major ethical concerns”, according to the Australia Defence Association, while another expert thinks it is broadly a good idea.
The two nations are set to begin negotiating a new defence treaty that is expected to see Papua New Guineans join the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James believes “it’s an idiot idea” if there is no pathway to citizenship for Papua New Guineans who serve in the ADF
“You can’t expect other people to defend your country if you’re not willing to do it and until this scheme actually addresses this in any detail, we’re not going to know whether it’s an idiot idea or it’s something that might be workable in the long run.”
However, an expert associate at the Australian National University’s National Security College, Jennifer Parker, believes it is a good idea.
“Australia having a closer relationship with Papua New Guinea through that cross pollination of people going and working in each other’s defence forces, that’s incredibly positive.”
Parker said recruiting from the Pacific has been an ongoing conversation, but the exact nature of what the recruitment might look like is unknown, including whether there is a pathway to citizenship or if there would be a separate PNG unit within the ADF.
Extreme scenario
When asked whether it was ethical for people from PNG to fight Australia’s wars, Parker said that would be an extreme scenario.
“We’re not talking about conscripting people from other countries or anything like that. We’re talking about offering the opportunity for people, if they choose to join,” she said.
“There are many defence forces around the world where people choose, people who are born in other countries, choose to join.”
However, James disagrees.
“Whether they’re volunteers or whether they’re conscripted, you’re still expecting foreigners to defend your society and with no link to that society.”
Both Parker and James brought up concerns surrounding brain drain.
James said in Timor-Leste, in the early 2000s, many New Zealanders in the army infantry who were serving alongside Australia joined the Australian Army, attracted by the higher pay, which was not in the interest of New Zealand or Australia in the long run.
Care needed
“You’ve got to be real careful that you don’t ruin the Papua New Guinea Defence Force by making it too easy for Papua New Guineans to serve in the Australian Defence Force.”
Parker said the policy needed to be crafted very clearly in conjunction with Papua New Guinea to make sure it strengthened the two nations relationship, not undermined it.
Australia aims to grow the number of ADF uniformed personnel to 80,000 by 2040. However, it is not on track to meet that target.
Parker said she did not think Australia was trying to fill the shortfall.
“There are a couple of challenges in the recruitment issues for the Australian Defence Force.
“But I don’t think the scoping of recruiting people from Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands, if it indeed goes ahead, is about addressing recruitment for the Australian Defence Force.
“I think it’s about increasing closer security ties between Papua New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, and Australia.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
The Greyshark autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), developed by Euroatlas, made its first appearance in Asia at IMDEX 2025. The Germany-based company exhibited a mock-up of its 6.5m-long Greyshark Bravo variant. The 3.5-tonne Bravo is powered by lithium-ion batteries, whereas the larger 4.5-tonne Foxtrot variant uses fuel cells for its electric drive. The latter variant measures […]
To mark the release of the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) partnered with the agency The Good Company to launch a new awareness campaign that puts an ironic twist on the glossy advertising of the tourism industry.
Three out of six countries featured in the exposé are from the Asia Pacific region — but none from the Pacific Islands.
The campaign shines a stark light on the press freedom violations in countries that seem perfect on postcards but are highly dangerous for journalists, says RSF.
Disguised as attractive travel guides, the campaign’s visuals use a cynical, impactful rhetoric to highlight the harsh realities journalists face in destinations renowned for their tourist appeal.
Along with Indonesia, Greece (89th), Cambodia (115), Egypt (170), Mexico (124) and the Philippines (116) are all visited by millions of tourists, yet they rank poorly in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, reports RSF.
‘Chilling narrative’
“The attention-grabbing visuals juxtapose polished, enticing aesthetics with a chilling narrative of intimidation, censorship, violence, and even death.
“This deliberately unsettling approach by RSF aims to shift the viewer’s perspective, showing what the dreamlike imagery conceals: journalists imprisoned, attacked, or murdered behind idyllic landscapes.”
The RSF Index 2025 teaser. Video: RSF
Indonesia is in the Pacific spotlight because of its Melanesian Papuan provinces bordering Pacific Islands Forum member country Papua New Guinea.
Despite outgoing President Joko Widodo’s 10 years in office and a reformist programme, his era has been marked by a series of broken promises, reports RSF.
“The media oligarchy linked to political interests has grown stronger, leading to increased control over critical media and manipulation of information through online trolls, paid influencers, and partisan outlets,” says the Index report.
“This climate has intensified self-censorship within media organisations and among journalists.
“Since October 2024, Indonesia has been led by a new president, former general Prabowo Subianto — implicated in several human rights violation allegations — and by Joko Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as vice-president.
“Under this new administration, whose track record on press freedom offers little reassurance, concerns are mounting over the future of independent journalism.”
Fiji leads in Pacific
In the Pacific, Fiji has led the pack among island states by rising four places to 40th overall, making it the leading country in Oceania in 2025 in terms of press freedom.
A quick summary of Oceania rankings in the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index. Image: RSF/PMW
Both Timor-Leste, which dropped 19 places to 39th after heading the region last year, and Samoa, which plunged 22 places to 44th, lost their impressive track record.
Of the only other two countries in Oceania surveyed by RSF, Tonga rose one place to 46th and Papua New Guinea jumped 13 places to 78th, a surprising result given the controversy over its plans to regulate the media.
RSF reports that the Fiji Media Association (FMA), which was often critical of the harassment of the media by the previous FijiFirst government, has since the repeal of the Media Act in 2023 “worked hard to restore independent journalism and public trust in the media”.
In March 2024, research published in Journalism Practice journal found that sexual harassment of women journalists was widespread and needed to be addressed to protect media freedom and quality journalism.
In Timor-Leste, “politicians regard the media with some mistrust, which has been evidenced in several proposed laws hostile to press freedom, including one in 2020 under which defaming representatives of the state or Catholic Church would have been punishable by up to three years in prison.
“Journalists’ associations and the Press Council often criticise politicisation of the public broadcaster and news agency.”
On the night of September 4, 2024, Timorese police arrested Antonieta Kartono Martins, a reporter for the news site Diligente Online, while covering a police operation to remove street vendors from a market in Dili, the capital. She was detained for several hours before being released.
Samoan harassment
Previously enjoying a good media freedom reputation, journalists and their families in Samoa were the target of online death threats, prompting the Samoan Alliance of Media Professionals for Development (SAMPOD) to condemn the harassment as “attacks on the fourth estate and democracy”.
In Tonga, RSF reports that journalists are not worried about being in any physical danger when on the job, and they are relatively unaffected by the possibility of prosecution.
“Nevertheless, self-censorship continues beneath the surface in a tight national community.”
In Papua New Guinea, RSF reports journalists are faced with intimidation, direct threats, censorship, lawsuits and bribery attempts, “making it a dangerous profession”.
“And direct interference often threatens the editorial freedom at leading media outlets. This was seen yet again at EMTV in February 2022, when the entire newsroom was fired after walking out” in protest over a management staffing decison.
“There has been ongoing controversy since February 2023 concerning a draft law on media development backed by Communications Minister Timothy Masiu. In January 2024, a 14-day state of emergency was declared in the capital, Port Moresby, following unprecedented protests by police forces and prison wardens.”
This impacted on government and media relations.
Australia and New Zealand
In Australia (29), the media market’s heavy concentration limits the diversity of voices represented in the news, while independent outlets struggle to find a sustainable economic model.
While New Zealand (16) leads in the Asia Pacific region, it is also facing a similar situation to Australia with a narrowing of media plurality, closure or merging of many newspaper titles, and a major retrenchment of journalists in the country raising concerns about democracy.
Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
Footnote content. The dust had barely settled on the Australian federal election on May 3 before the hagiographers, mythmakers and revisionists got to work. If history is seen as a set of agreed upon facts, there was a rapidly growing consensus that Labor’s imposing victory had been the result of a superb campaign, sparkling in its faultlessness.
This did not quite match pre-election remarks and assessments. The government of Anthony Albanese had been markedly unconvincing, marked by dithering, short sightedness and a lack of conviction. It had, rather inexplicably, made the conservative Coalition led by that cruel, simian looking automaton Peter Dutton, look electable.
Overall, the campaign on the part of both sides of politics was consistently dull and persistently mediocre. Expansive, broad ideas were eschewed in favour of minutiae and objects of bribery: tax matters, cutting fuel excise, forgiving some student debt, improved Medicare services and child care assistance. Issues such as the parlous reliance of Australia upon US security interests, not to mention the criminally daft obligations of the AUKUS security pact, or a detailed, coherent policy on addressing environmental and climate challenges, were kept in storage.
What did become evident in the weeks leading up to the poll was that the Coalition policy palette, which never went beyond blotches of law and order (terrorism, criminal refugees, paedophilia forefront themes), mild bribes for “cost of living relief”; and illusory nuclear energy, failed to appeal. Its campaign lacked the barely modest bite of Labor, largely because it had been eclipsed by such oxygen drawing events as US President Donald Trump’s tariff regime and the death of Pope Francis I.
It had also misread the mood of the electorate in pushing policies with a tangy Trump flavour, notably the proposed removal of 41,000 jobs from the public sector and the establishment of something similar to the US Department of Government Efficiency . (Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price unhelpfully promised to “make Australia great again.”) The Coalition, Dutton admitted after being accused by Labor of being “DOGE-y Dutton”, had “made a mistake” and “got it wrong”. The focus would be, instead, on natural attrition. There were also scrappy sorties on the cultural war front, featuring lashings of undesirable press outlets, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Guardian (“hate media”, according to Dutton), and the presence of “wokeism” in schools.
Flimsy soothsayers could also be found, many endorsing a Liberal-Nationals victory. “For the first time in my journalistic career,” beamed Sharri Markson of Sky News Australia on May 1, “I’m going to offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.” With vigorous drumbeating, Markson could only see “our values under threat – from enemies and abroad” – and retaining Anthony Albanese as prime minister was dangerous. With the analytical skill of an unread, hungover undergraduate, the political astrologist found the PM a victim of “far-left ideology”, something “out of step with mainstream Australia.”
With Labor’s victory assured, the fiscal conservatives at the Australian Financial Review proved sniffy, noting that Labor’s record on the economy did not warrant another term “but the Coalition has not made the case to change the government.” More explicit, with hectoring relish, was Australia’s premier shock jock of the press stable, Andrew Bolt. “No, the voters aren’t always right,” he wrote scoldingly in the News Corp yellow press. “This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed.” Australians were set to “get more” of policies that had “left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt”.
One is reminded of Henry Kissinger’s rebuke of Chilean democracy at the election of the socialist leader Salvador Allende. As one of US foreign policy’s chief malefactors, he refused to accept the proposition that a country could “go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.” Democracy was only worthy if directed by the appropriate interests.
Senator Price, evidently rattled by the result, returned to the Trumpian well, hoping to draw attention to claims of irregular voting in rural polling booths. The Australian Electoral Commission, she told the ABC, “has been alerted to this over and over and does little with it. I urge the ABC, as a taxpayer funded organisation, to go out and see what is occurring.”
There are other evident patterns that emerged in the vote. The old division between urban, metropolitan areas and rural and country communities has been coloured with sharpness. The Liberal Party, which must win seats in urban Australia, finds itself marginalised before its allies, the Nationals, who have retained their complement in regional and country areas. Party voices and strategists lament that not more was done after the 2022 defeat, with the Liberals refusing to address, among other things, the failure to appeal to female voters or the youth vote.
Disappointing in such stonking majorities is the assumption that minority parties and independents can be ignored, if not with contempt, then with condescending politeness. Labor may well be soaring with the greatest return of seats in its history, but attitudes of the electorate can harden quickly. The move away from the major parties, as a trend, continues, and there is no room for complacency in a new Albanese government.
Among the many lessons to be learnt by Australia’s defeated Liberal-National coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation.
Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?
The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.
Last Thursday, in her eponymous programme on Sky News Australia, Markson said:
For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.
Sharri Markson issues own Dutton endorsement as ACM says ‘Australia is Tanya Plibersek’https://t.co/UYh0xKeXPR
After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sunadmonishing voters:
No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies.
That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.
The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the coalition in their election eve editorials.
Repudiation of minor culture war
The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Peter Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error.
The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.
But they were either voting for the coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the coalition desperately needed to keep onside — the moderates who already felt disappointed by the coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.
Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the coalition no longer represented their values.
Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message.
But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.
What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing — which voters desperately wanted to hear — were little more than sound bites.
Steered clear of nuclear sites
This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.
— C h r i s @chrishehim.bsky.social (@ChrisHeHim1) May 4, 2025
The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.
On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some coalition supporters might assume.
He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.
Instead, the coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.
Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.
If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.
The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief-of-staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.
An 11th-hour blitzkrieg for the Australian election 2025 tomorrow claims the Greens are enabling extremists who “will do anything in their power to establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate”. Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon investigate the Dark Money election.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon
Minority Impact Coalition is a shadowy organisation which appeared on Australia’s political landscape in February of this year.
According to its constitution, its object is to promote “mutual respect and tolerance between groups of people in Australia by actively countering racism and bringing widespread understanding and tolerance amongst all sectors of the community”.
However, it is spreading ignorance, fear and Islamophobia to millions of mostly male Australians living in the outer suburbs and the regions.
Advance is ‘transparent … easy to deal with’ Speaking to an Australian Jewish Association webinar, Roslyn Mendelle, who is of Israeli-American origin and a director of Minority Impact Coalition (MIC), said the rightwing Advance introduced her to the concept of a third party.
“Advance has been nothing but absolutely honest, transparent, direct, and easy to deal with,” Mendelle said.
The electoral laws, which many say are “broken by design”, mean that it will be several months before MIC’s major donors are revealed. Donors making repeated donations below $15,900 are unlisted “dark money”. (This threshold will change to $5000 in 2026).
Who’s paying to undermine Australian democracy? Scam of the week Video: MWM
Coming in second place, are the returns from the Australian Taxation Office.
In NSW, it is targeting Greens candidates everywhere and is also focussed on the Labor-held seat of Gilmore, challenged by Liberal Party candidate Andrew Constance.
Independent journalist Alex McKinnon reported that MIC spokesperson and midwife, Sharon Stoliar, wrote in an open letter:
“When you chant ‘from the river to the sea Palestine will be free’ . . . while wearing NSW Health uniforms, you are representing NSW Health in a call for genocide of Jews. YOU. ARE. SUPPORTING. TERRORISM… I. WILL. REPORT. YOU.”
Its campaign material is authorised by Joshu Turier, a retired boxer and right-wing extremist.
According to Facebook library, MIC’s ads are targeted at men, particularly between ages 35 and 54 in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.
In mid-April, the group paid for an ad so extreme that Instagram pulled it, leading to Turier reposting on his own Facebook page again this week. He complained that “It’s beyond troubling when our media platforms remove simple, factual material.”
They are ‘coming for us’ {Editor … oh no!} By Wednesday, the video was back on MIC’s Facebook account. The video says that the Greens are deliberately enabling pro-Palestine student protesters, who
“Don’t actually believe in the concept of a nation. They don’t believe in borders. They don’t believe there is a national identity. They believe in the Islamic brotherhood.”
“. . . It is just the beginning. When antisemitism starts, it’s not going to stop. They are going to come for Christians, for Atheists, for Agnostics.”
MIC is spending big on billboards, campaign trucks, and professional videos targeting at least five electorates. But despite their big spending, they cannot be found on the Australian Electoral Commission transparency register.
According to the transparency advocacy group WhoTargets.Me, MIC has spent more than $50,000 on Google and Meta ads in the last month alone. This doesn’t account for billboards, trucks, labour, or the 200,000 addresses letterboxed in late March.
More investigation shows their donations will all flow through the QJ Collective Ltd (QJC), which also “powers” the Minority Impact Coalition website. QJC is registered as a significant third party with the Australian Electoral Commission.
Clones with ghost offices
Advance director Sandra Bourke and Roslyn Mendelle. Image: QJ Collective, Instagram
MIC and Queensland Jewish Collective are virtually identical. They have always had the same directors — with Azin Naghibi replacing Roslyn’s partner, Hava Mendelle, as both QJC and MIC director in March 2025.
When QJC first came to MWM’snotice last year, it was running a relatively well-funded campaign — although limited to several seats — to “Put the Greens Last” in the Queensland state election.
In September 2024, the group’s website stated that it was “non-partisan and not left or right-wing”, and that its “goal was to support Queenslanders in making informed decisions when voting for our leaders”. MIC is the vehicle for this campaign.
Today, neither the QJC nor MIC makes any such claim. The Collective’s website lists its leading “campaign’” as “exposing the two-faced nature of the Labor party”.
The alarming detail While the two “grassroots” groups share several of their total five different associated addresses, mostly consisting of shared offices, it is not a perfect match.
For both groups, directors Mendelle and Turier list their address as 470 St Pauls Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Queensland. There was no name or company, just an address, however, shared offices run by Jubilee Place are available at that location.
QJC and MIC director Naghibi lists her address on both extracts as 740 St Pauls Terrace, a non-commercial building.
Either Mendelle and Turier are living out of a shared office, or Naghibi is unable to remember the address of the shared office she has little real connection to.
Last year, MWM contacted the owners of QJC’s listed office address at Insolvency Company Accountants in Tewantin, Queensland. At first, the firm said that no one had heard of them. Following that, the firm said that the Collective is a client of the firm, however denied any further connection.
A fresh search this year showed an additional contact address listed by the grassroots Collective — this time 1700 km away — at 1250 Malvern Road, Malvern, Victoria. Again there was no name or company, just an address.
Located at that address is boutique accounting firm Greenberg & Co, which specialises in serving clients who are “high net worth individuals”. MWM contacted senior partner Jay Greenberg who said his role was only one of ‘financial compliance’. He said that he did have personal views on the election but these were not relevant. He declined to discuss further details.
Attack of the clones Better Australia is a third party campaigner that, like QJ Collective in 2024, claims to be bipartisan.
Its communications are authorised by Sophie Calland, an active member of NSW Labor’s Alexandria Branch. Her husband Ofir Birenbaum — from the nearby Rosebery Branch — is also a member of the third party Better Australia.
Co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel, Eric Roozendaal, and former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s secretary, Yaron Finkelstein, provided further campaign advice at a members meeting.
Patron of Labor Friends of Israel and former Senator Nova Peris teamed up with Better Australia for a campaign video last week.
“When Greens leader Adam Bandt refuses to stand in front of the Australian flag,” Peris said, “I ask, how can you possibly stand for our country?”
Better Australia’s stated goal is to campaign for a major government “regardless of which major party is in office”.
The group urges voters to “put the Greens and Teals last”, warning that a Labor minority government would be chaos. The “non-partisan” third party has made no statements on the Liberal-National Coalition, nor on a minority government with One Nation.
Some Better Australia workers — who wear bright yellow jackets labelled “community advisor” — are paid, and others volunteer.
“Isabella” told MWM that her enlistment as a volunteer for the third party campaigner is “not political” — rather it is all “about Israel”.
Previously Isabella had protested in support of the Israeli hostages and prisoners of war held in Gaza.
Better Australia’s “community advisor” “Isabella” at a Bondi Junction polling booth. Image: Wendy Bacon/MWM
Another campaigner told us he was paid by Better Australia. He spoke little English and declined to say more.
Two schoolgirls campaigning at Rose Bay told MWM that they were paid by their father who had chaired a Better Australia meeting the previous evening. They declined to disclose his name.
Calland addressing her Israeli volunteers. Image: Better Australia/Instagram/MWM
MWM later interviewed this woman who is an Israeli on a working holiday visa. She was supporting the campaign because it fits her political “vision”: the Greens and independent MPs like Allegra Spender must be removed from office because they are “against Israel” and for a “Free Palestine” which would mean the end of “my country”.
Allegra Spender denies these assertions.
Greens leader Adam Bandt remained determinedly optimistic, telling MWM that organisations such as Better Australia and MIC,
“are able to run their disinformation campaigns because Australia has no truth in political advertising laws, which enables them to lie about the priorities of the Greens and crossbench without consequence, as well as huge corporate money flowing into politics.
“In this term of Parliament, Labor failed to progress truth in political advertising laws, and instead did a dirty deal with the Liberals on electoral reforms to try and shut out third parties and independents.”
Labor’s candidate for Wentworth, Savannah Peake, told MWM on Tuesday that she had known Calland for 18 months.
Peake said that while she knew Calland had previously founded Better Council, she had only discovered Calland was authorising Better Australia when she arrived at the booth that morning.
Peake told MWM that she had contacted the NSW Labor Head Office to voice her objections and was confident the issue would be “dealt with swiftly”.
The third party campaign runs contrary to Peake’s preferences, which tells supporters in Wentworth to vote #1 Labor and #2 Allegra Spender. MWM repeatedly tried to follow up with Peake throughout the week to find out what action NSW Labor had taken but received no reply.
Liberal candidate for Wentworth, Ro Knox, complies with Better Australia’s call to put Greens last on her voting preferences.
Many people in NSW Labor know about their fellow members’ involvement in Better Australia. The Minister for Environment and MP for Sydney Tanya Plibersek, state member Ron Hoenig and NSW Labor have all previously refused to answer questions.
A Labor volunteer at a Wentworth pre-poll booth told MWM that he disapproved if a fellow party member was involved with the third party. Two older Labor volunteers were in disbelief, having incorrectly assumed that the anti-Teal posters were authorised by the Trumpet of Patriots party.
Another said he was aware of Calland’s activities but had decided “not to investigate” further.
Better Australia focuses on Richmond By the end of the week, Better Australia had left a trail of “Put the Greens last’ placards across Sydney’s Inner West, one of them outside the Cairo Takeaway cafe where the third party’s organiser Ofir Birenbaum was first exposed.
The third party have extended their polling campaign to the seat of Richmond, on the North coast of NSW where campaign sources are expecting more volunteers on election day.
As parties dash to the finishing line, they are calling for more donations to counter the astroturfers. According to website TheyTargetYou, the major parties alone have spent $11.5 million on Meta and Google ads over the last month.
Better Australia splurged $200,000 on ads targeting digital TV, social media, and the Australian Financial Review. Digital ads will continue in the final three days of the election, exploiting loopholes in the mandated political advertising blackout.
The Australian public has made little progress towards transparency in the current term of government.
Until reforms are made, Silicon Valley tech giants will continue to profit from dodgy ads and astroturfing groups sowing division with each Australian election cycle.
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the Professor of Journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. The article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.
While Aotearoa New Zealand improved three places in the latest RSF World Press Freedom Index — up to 16th — and most other Pacific countries surveyed did well, it was a bad year generally for the Asia-Pacific region.
Fiji (40th — up four places) has done best out of island nations to edge Samoa (44 — slumping 22 places) out of its traditional perch.
In the region overall, press freedom and access to reliable news sources have been “severely compromised” by the predominance of regimes — often authoritarian — that strictly control information, often through economic means, reports RSF.
In many countries, the government has a tight grip on media ownership, allowing them to interfere in outlets’ editorial choices, says the regional report.
“It is highly telling that 20 of the region’s 32 countries and territories saw their economic indicators drop in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index,” said the RSF editors.
Authoritarian regimes’ systematic control
The region harbours some of the most advanced states in terms of media control.
In North Korea (179), the media are nothing more than propaganda tools entirely subordinate to the country’s totalitarian regime.
In China (178) and Vietnam (173), outlets are either state-owned or controlled by groups closely tied to the countries’ respective Communist parties, and the only independent reporting comes from freelance journalists who mainly operate underground.
The independent journalists “work under constant threat and with no financial stability”.
RSF’s World Press Freedom Index commentary. Video: RSF
Meanwhile, foreign outlets can find themselves blacklisted at any given moment.
Growing repression, increasing uncertainty
The crackdown on press freedom is spreading across the region and is increasingly inspired
by the Chinese method of controlling information, reports RSF.
Spotlight on the Asia-Pacific region for media freedom. Image: RSF
Since the 2021 military coup in Myanmar (169), many of the country’s independent outlets have been dismantled. The few that remain are forced to work underground or from exile and can barely continue operations due to the lack of sustainable revenue.
Similarly, crackdowns on press freedom in Cambodia (161) and Hong Kong (140), where the press freedom situation has become “very serious,” have led to newsroom closures, journalists fleeing into exile — often with fragile finances — and pro-government outlets absorbing most media funding.
In Afghanistan (175), at least 12 new media outlets were forced to close in 2024 due to new directives imposed by the Taliban.
In the United States, the decision made in March by President Donald Trump led to the
suspension of Radio Free Asia’s (RFA) shortwave radio programmes in Mandarin, Tibetan
and Lao, and its affiliated BenarNews service, which had been building up Pacific news coverage.
Most US-based staff, including at-risk visa holders, along with staff in Australia, were axed with the budget cuts, potentially turning entire regions into “information blackouts”.
Media concentration and political collusion
In several countries, the concentration of media ownership in the hands of political magnates threatened media plurality, the RSF Asia-Pacific editors said.
In India (151), Indonesia (127) and Malaysia (88 ), a handful of politically connected conglomerates control most media groups.
In Thailand (85), the major media groups maintain close ties with the military or royal elite, who directly influence their content.
Similarly, in Mongolia (102), influential individuals from the business world, who are
often close to those in power, own a dominant share of the media landscape and use it to
promote their political and economic interests.
In Pakistan (158), the authorities threaten independant outlets with the cancellation of government advertising contracts.
Economic pressure even in democracies
Independent outlets in established democracies have also fallen prey to economic pressure.
In Taiwan (24), a rare case of government pressure affected the English-speaking public
broadcaster TaiwanPlus, whose funding was also significantly reduced by Parliament, which
is controlled by opposition parties.
In Australia (29), the media market’s heavy concentration limits the diversity of voices represented in the news, while independent outlets struggle to find a sustainable economic model.
While New Zealand (16) leads in the Asia Pacific region, it is also facing a similar situation to Australia with a narrowing of media plurality, closure or merging of many newspaper titles, and a major retrenchment of journalists in the country raising concerns about democracy.
The closure of Newshub cited by RSF as one of the threats to media freedom in Aotearoa New Zealand. Image: RSF webinar screenshot PMW
Until four years ago, New Zealand had been regularly listed among the top 10 leading countries for press freedom — along with the Scandinavian countries — but last year dropped as far as 19th.
The RSF regional analyses are updated every year and shed light on the trends observed in each year’s Index and provide additional information.
The ranking and press freedom situation of each of the Index’s 180 countries are detailed in the country profiles, which can be consulted on the RSF website.
World Press Freedom is celebrated globally tomorrow – May 3 each year.
Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
Authoritarian regimes’ systematic control . . . RSF Asia-Pacific bureau advocacy manager Aleksandra Bielakowska presenting the regional report at a webinar in Taipei today. Image: RSF webinar screenshot PMW
Teals and Greens are under political attack from a new pro-fossil fuel, pro-Israel astroturfing group, adding to the onslaught by far-right lobbyists Advance Australia for Australian federal election tomorrow — World Press Freedom Day. Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon investigate.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon
On February 12 this year, former prime minister Scott Morrison’s principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein, and former Labor NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, met in the plush 50 Bridge St offices in the heart of Sydney’s CBD.
The powerbrokers were there to discuss election strategies for the astroturfing campaign group Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Finkelstein now runs his own discreet advisory firm Society Advisory, while also a director of the Liberal Party’s primary think-tank Menzies Research Centre. Previously, he worked as head of global campaigns for the conservative lobby firm Crosby Textor (CT), before working for Morrison and as Special Counsel to former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet.
Roozendaal earned a reputation as a top fundraiser during his term as general secretary of NSW Labor and a later stint for the Yuhu property developer. He is now a co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel.
The two strategists have previously served together on the executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, where Finkelstein was vice-president (2010-2019) and Roozendaal was later the chair of public affairs (2019-2020).
Better for whom? Better Australia chairperson Sophie Calland, a software engineer and active member of the Alexandria Branch of the Labor party attended the meeting. She is a director of Better Australia and carries formal responsibility for electoral campaigns (and partner of Israel agitator Ofir Birenbaum).
Also present at the meeting was Better Australia 2025 member Alex Polson, a former staffer to retiring Senator Simon Birmingham and CEO of firm DBK Advisory. Other members present included another director, Charline Samuell, and her husband, psychiatrist Dr Doron Samuell.
Last week, Dr Samuell attracted negative publicity when Liberal campaigners in the electorate of Reid leaked Whatsapp messages where he insisted on referring to Greens as Nazis. “Nazis at Chiswick wharf,” Samuell wrote, alongside a photograph of two Greens volunteers.
The Better Australia group already have experience as astroturfers. Their “Put The Greens Last” campaign was previously directed by Calland and Polson under the entity Better Council Inc. in the NSW Local government elections in September 2024.
The Greens lost three councillors in Sydney’s East but maintained five seats on the Inner West Council.
But the group had developed bigger electoral plans. They also registered the name Better NSW in mid-2024. By the time the group met for the first time this year on January 8, their plans to play a role in the Federal election were already well advanced.
They voted to change the name Better NSW Inc. to Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Calland and Birenbaum Group member Ofir Birenbaum joined the January meeting to discuss “potential campaign fundraising materials” and a “pool of national volunteers”. Birenbaum is Calland’s husband and member of the Rosebery Branch of the Labor Party.
But by the time the group met with Finkelstein and Roozendaal in February, Birenbaum was missing. The day before the meeting, Birenbaum’s role in the #UndercoverJew stunt at Cairo Takeaway cafe was sprung.
This incident focused attention on Birenbaum’s track record as an agitator at Pro-Palestine events and as a “close friend” of the extreme-right Australian Jewish Association. The former Instagram influencer has since closed his social media accounts and disappeared from public view.
The minutes of the February meeting lodged with NSW Fair Trading mention a “discussion of potential campaign management candidates; an in-depth presentation and discussion of strategy; a review and amendments of draft campaign fundraising materials”. All of this suggests that consultants had been hired and work was well underway.
The group also voted to change Better Council’s business address and register a national association with ASIC so they could legally campaign at a national level.
On March 4, Calland registered Better Australia as a “significant third party” with the Australian Electoral Commission. This is required for organisations that expect their campaign to cost more than $250,000.
Three weeks later, Prime Minister Albanese called the election, and Better Australia’s federal campaign was off to the races.
Labor or Liberal, it doesn’t matter… According to its website, Better Australia’s stated goals are non-partisan: they want a majority government, “regardless of which major party is in office”.
“In Australia, past minority governments have seen stalled reforms, frequent leadership changes, and uncertainty that paralysed effective governance.”
No evidence has been provided by either Better Australia’s website or campaigning materials for these statements. In fact, in its short lifetime, the Gillard Labor minority government passed legislation at a record pace.
Instead, it is all about creating fear. A stream of campaigning videos, posts, flyers and placards carrying simple messages tapping into fear, insecurity, distrust and disappointment have appeared on social media and the streets of Sydney in recent weeks.
Wentworth independent Allegra Spender wasted no time posting her own video telling voters she was unfazed, and for her electorate to make their own voting choices rather than fall for a crude scare campaign.
Spender is accused of supporting anti-Israel terrorism by voting to reinstate funding for the United Nations aid agency UNRWA. Better Australia warns that billionaires and dark money fund the Teal campaign, alleging average voters will lose their money if Teals are reelected.
It doesn’t matter that most Teal MPs have policies in favour of increasing accountability in government or that no information is provided about who is backing Better Australia.
Anti-Green, too The anti-Greens angle of Better Australia’s campaign sends a broad message to all electorates to “Put the Greens Last”. It aims to starve the Greens of preferences. The campaign message is simple: the Greens are “antisemitic, support terrorism, and have abandoned their environmental roots”.
It does not matter that calls unite the peaceful Palestine protests for a ceasefire, or that the Greens have never stopped campaigning for the environment and against new fossil fuel projects.
Better Australia promotes itself as a grassroots organisation. In February, Sophie Calland told The Guardian that “Better Australia is led by a broad coalition of Australians who believe that political representation should be based on integrity and action, not extremist or elite activism”.
It has very few members and its operations are marked by secrecy, and voters will have to wait a full year before the AEC registry of political donations reveals Better Australia’s backers.
It fits into a patchwork of organisations aiming to influence voters towards a framework of right-wing values, including
“support for the Israel Defence Force, fossil fuel industries, nationalism and anti-immigration and anti-transgender issues.”
Advance Australia (not so fair)
Advance is the lead organisation in this space. It campaigns in its own right and also supports other organisations, including Minority Impact Coalition, Queensland Jewish Collective and J-United.
Advance claims to have raised $5 million to smash the Greens and a supporter base of more than 245,000. It has received donations up to $500,000 from the Victorian Liberal Party’s holding company, Cormack Foundation.
In Melbourne, ex-Labor member for Macnamara, Michael Danby, directs and authorises “Macnamara Voters Against Extremism”, which pushes voters to preference either Liberals or Labor first, and the Greens last. Danby has spoken alongside Birenbaum at Together With Israel rallies.
Together With Israel: Michael Danby (from left), activist Ofir Birenbaum, unionist Michael Easson OAM, and Rabbi Ben Elton. Image: Together With Israel Facebook group/MWM
The message of Better Australia — and Better Council before it — mostly aligns with Advance. These campaigns target women aged 35 to 49, who Advance claims are twice as likely to vote for the Greens as men of the same age.
The scare campaign targets female voters with its fear-mongering and Greens MPS, including Australia’s first Muslim Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and independent female MPS with its loathing.
Meanwhile, Advance is funded by mining billionaires and advocates against renewable energy.
Labor standing by in silence Better Australia is different from Advance, which is targeting Labor because it is an alliance of Zionist Labor and LIberal interests. Calland’s campaign may be effectively contributing to the election of a Dutton government. In the face of what would appear to be betrayal, the NSW Labor Party simply stands by.
The NSW Labor Rules Book (Section A.7c) states that a member may be suspended for “disloyal or unworthy conduct [or] action or conduct contrary to the principles and solidarity of the Party.”
Following MWM’s February exposé of Birenbaum, we sent questions to NSW Labor Head Office, and MPs Tanya Plibersek and Ron Hoenig, without reply. Hoenig is a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and has attended Alexandria Branch meetings with Calland.
MWM asked Plibersek to comment on Birenbaum’s membership of her own Rosebery Branch, and on Birenbaum’s covert filming of Luc Velez, the Greens candidate in Plibersek’s seat of Sydney. Birenbaum shared the video and generated homophobic commentary, but we received no answers to any of our questions.
According to MWM sources, Calland’s involvement in Better Australia and Better Council before that is well known in Inner Sydney Labor circles. Last Tuesday night, she attended an Alexandria Branch meeting that discussed the Federal election. She also attended a meeting of Plibersek’s campaign.
No one raised or asked questions about Calland’s activities. MWM is not aware if NSW Labor has received complaints from any of its members alleging that Calland or Birenbaum has breached the party’s rules.
After all, when top Liberal and Labor strategists walk into a corporate boardroom, there is much to agree on.
It begins with a national campaign to keep the major parties in and independents and Greens out.
MWM has sent questions to Calland, Finkelstein, and Roozendaal, regarding funding and the alliance between Liberal and Labor powerbrokers but we have yet to receive any replies.
Wendy Baconis an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies.
Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission of the authors.
And I certainly did not expect Peter Dutton — amid an election campaign, one with citizens heading to the polls on World Press Freedom Day — to come out swinging at the ABC and Guardian Australia, telling his followers to ignore “the hate media”.
I’m not saying Labor is likely to be the great saviour of the free press either.
The ALP has been slow to act on a range of important press freedom issues, including continuing to charge journalism students upwards of $50,000 for the privilege of learning at university how to be a decent watchdog for society.
Labor has increased, slightly, funding for the ABC, and has tried to continue with the Coalition’s plans to force the big tech platforms to pay for news. But that is not enough.
The World Press Freedom Index has been telling us for some time that Australia’s press is in a perilous state. Last year, Australia dropped to 39th out of 190 countries because of what Reporters Without Borders said was a “hyperconcentration of the media combined with growing pressure from the authorities”.
We should know on election day if we’ve fallen even further.
What is happening in America is having a profound impact on journalism (and by extension journalism education) in Australia.
‘Friendly’ influencers
We’ve seen both parties subtly start to sideline the mainstream media by going to “friendly” influencers and podcasters, and avoid the harder questions that come from journalists whose job it is to read and understand the policies being presented.
What Australia really needs — on top of stable and guaranteed funding for independent and reliable public interest journalism, including the ABC and SBS — is a Media Freedom Act.
My colleague Professor Peter Greste has spent years working on the details of such an act, one that would give media in Australia the protection lacking from not having a Bill of Rights safeguarding media and free speech. So far, neither side of government has signed up to publicly support it.
Australia also needs an accompanying Journalism Australia organisation, where ethical and trained journalists committed to the job of watchdog journalism can distinguish themselves from individuals on YouTube and TikTok who may be pushing their own agendas and who aren’t held to the same journalistic code of ethics and standards.
I’m not going to argue that all parts of the Australian news media are working impartially in the best interests of ordinary people. But the good journalists who are need help.
The continuing underfunding of our national broadcasters needs to be resolved. University fees for journalism degrees need to be cut, in recognition of the value of the profession to the fabric of Australian society. We need regulations to force news organisations to disclose when they are using AI to do the job of journalists and broadcasters without human oversight.
And we need more funding for critical news literacy education, not just for school kids but also for adults.
Critical need for public interest journalism
There has never been a more critical need to support public interest journalism. We have all watched in horror as Donald Trump has denied wire services access for minor issues, such as failing to comply with an ungazetted decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
And mere days ago, 60 Minutes chief Bill Owens resigned citing encroachments on his journalistic independence due to pressure from the president.
The Committee to Protect Journalists is so concerned about what’s occurring in America that it has issued a travel advisory for journalists travelling to the US, citing risks under Trump administration policies.
Those of us who cover politically sensitive issues that the US administration may view as critical or hostile may be stopped and questioned by border agents. That can extend to cardigan-wearing academics attending conferences.
While we don’t have the latest Australian figures from the annual Reuters survey, a new Pew Research Centre study shows a growing gap between how much Americans say they value press freedom and how free they think the press actually is. Two-thirds of Americans believe press freedom is critical. But only a third believe the media is truly free to do its job.
If the press isn’t free in the US (where it is guaranteed in their constitution), how are we in Australia expected to be able to keep the powerful honest?
Every single day, journalists put their lives on the line for journalism. It’s not always as dramatic as those who are covering the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, but those in the media in Australia still front up and do the job across a range of news organisations in some fairly poor conditions.
If you care about democracy at all this election, then please consider wisely who you vote for, and perhaps ask their views on supporting press freedom — which is your right to know.
Alexandra Wake is an associate professor in journalism at RMIT University. She came to the academy after a long career as a journalist and broadcaster. She has worked in Australia, Ireland, the Middle East and across the Asia Pacific. Her research, teaching and practice sits at the nexus of journalism practice, journalism education, equality, diversity and mental health.
30 April 1975. Saigon Fell, Vietnam Rose. The story of Vietnam after the US fled the country is not a fairy tale, it is not a one-dimensional parable of resurrection, of liberation from oppression, of joy for all — but there is a great deal to celebrate.
After over a century of brutal colonial oppression by the French, the Japanese, and the Americans and their various minions, the people of Vietnam won victory in one of the great liberation struggles of history.
It became a source of inspiration and of hope for millions of people oppressed by imperial powers in Central & South America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
Civil war – a war among several
The civil war in Vietnam, coterminous with the war against the Western powers, pitted communists and anti-communists in a long and pitiless struggle.
Within that were various strands — North versus South, southern communists and nationalists against pro-Western forces, and so on. As various political economists have pointed out, all wars are in some way class wars too — pitting the elites against ordinary people.
As has happened repeatedly throughout history, once one or more great power becomes involved in a civil war it is subsumed within that colonial war. The South’s President Ngô Đình Diệm, for example, was assassinated on orders of the Americans.
By 1969, US aid accounted for 80 percent of South Vietnam’s government budget; they effectively owned the South and literally called the shots.
Donald Trump declared April 2 “Liberation Day” and imposed some of the heaviest tariffs on Vietnam because they didn’t buy enough U.S. goods! Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
US punishes its victims
This month, 50 years after the Vietnamese achieved independence from their colonial overlords, US President Donald Trump declared April 2 “Liberation Day” and imposed some of the heaviest tariffs on Vietnam because they didn’t buy enough US goods!
As economist Joseph Stiglitz pointed out, they don’t yet have enough aggregate demand for the kind of goods the US produces. That might have something to do with the decades it has taken to rebuild their lives and economy from the Armageddon inflicted on them by the US, Australia, New Zealand and other unindicted war criminals.
Straight after they fled, the US declared themselves the victims of the Vietnamese and imposed punitive sanctions on liberated Vietnam for decades — punishing their victims.
Under Gerald Ford (1974–1977), Jimmy Carter (1977–1981), Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), George H.W. Bush (1989–1993) right up to Bill Clinton (1993–2001), the US enforced the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.
The US froze the assets of Vietnam at the very time it was trying to recover from the wholesale devastation of the country.
Tens of millions of much-needed dollars were captured in US banks, enforced by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The US also took advantage of its muscle to veto IMF and World Bank loans to Vietnam.
Countries like Australia and New Zealand, to their eternal shame, took part in both the war, the war crimes, and imposing sanctions and other punitive measures subsequently.
The ‘Boat People’ refugee crisis While millions celebrated the victory in 1975, millions of others were fearful. The period of national unification and economic recovery was painful, typically repressive — when one militarised regime replaces another.
This triggered flight: firstly among urban elites — military officers, government workers, and professionals who were most closely-linked to the US-run regime.
You can blame the Commies for the ensuing refugee crisis but by strangling the Vietnamese economy, refusing to return Vietnamese assets held in the US, imposing an effective blockade on the economy via sanctions, the US deepened the crisis, which saw over two million flee the country between 1975 and the 1980s.
More than 250,000 desperate people died at sea.
Đổi Mới: the move to a socialist-market economy In 1986, to energise the economy, the government moved away from a command economy and launched the đổi mới reforms which created a hybrid socialist-market economy.
They had taken a leaf out of the Chinese playbook, which under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping (1978 –1989), had moved towards a market economy through its “Reform and Opening Up” policies. Vietnam saw the “economic miracle” of its near neighbour and its leaders sought something similar.
Vietnam’s economy boomed and GDP grew from $18.1 billion in 1984 to $469 billion by 2024, with a per capita GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) of $15,470 (up from about $300 per capita in the 1970s).
After a sluggish start, literacy rates soared to 96.1 percent by 2023, and life expectancy reached 73.7 years, only a few short of the USA. GDP growth is around 7 percent, according to the OECD.
An unequal society Persistent inequality suggests the socialist vision has partially faded. A rural-urban divide and a rich-poor divide underlines ongoing injustices around quality of life and access to services but Vietnam’s Gini coefficient — a measure of income inequality — puts it only slightly more “unequal” as a society than New Zealand or Germany.
Corruption is also an issue in the country.
Press controls and political repression As in China, political power resides with the Party. Freedom of expression — highlighted by press repression — is severely limited in Vietnam and nothing to celebrate.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) rates Vietnam as 174th out of 180 countries for press freedom and regularly excoriates its strongmen as press “predators”. In its country profile, RSF says of Vietnam: “Independent reporters and bloggers are often jailed, making Vietnam the world’s third largest jailer of journalists”.
Vietnam is forging its own destiny What is well worth celebrating, however, is that Vietnam successfully got the imperial powers off its back and out of its country. It is well-placed to play an increasingly prosperous and positive role in the emerging multipolar world.
It is part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the ASEAN network, and borders China, giving Vietnam the opportunity to weather any storms coming from the continent of America.
Vietnam today is united and free and millions of ordinary people have achieved security, health, education and prosperity vastly better than their parents and grandparents’ generations were able to.
In the end the honour and glory go to the Vietnamese people.
Ho Chi Minh, the great leader of the Vietnamese people who reached out to the United States, and sought alliance not conflict. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
I’ll give the last word to Ho Chi Minh, the great leader of the Vietnamese people who reached out to the United States, and sought alliance not conflict. He was rebuffed by the super-power which had a different agenda.
On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi’s Ba Dinh square:
“‘All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’
“This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
“… A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eight years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.
“For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country — and in fact is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilise all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.”
And, my god, they did.
To conclude, a short poem attributed to Ho Chi Minh:
“After the rain, good weather.
“In the wink of an eye,
the universe throws off its muddy clothes.”
Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will receive heavy-duty Dura-Base mats to enhance construction of temporary pavements in austere environments. The matting will be used as an alternative to AM2 aluminium matting, which has been used by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) since the 1960s. Babcock Australasia announced in April that it will supply hundreds […]
The former head of BenarNews’ Pacific bureau says a United States court ruling this week ordering the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) to release congressionally approved funding to Radio Free Asia and its subsidiaries “makes us very happy”.
However, Stefan Armbruster, who has played a key role in expanding the news agency’s presence in the region, acknowledged, “there’s also more to do”.
On March 14, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to defund USAGM outlets Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, including placing more than 1300 Voice of America employees on leave.
“This order continues the reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary,” the executive order states.
Armbruster told RNZ Pacific Waves that the ruling found the Trump administration failed to provide evidence to support their actions.
Signage for US broadcaster Voice of America in Washington, DC . . . Trump administration failed to provide evidence to support its actions. Image: RNZ Pacific
“[Judge Royce Lamberth] is basically saying that the actions of the Trump administration [are] likely to have been illegal and unconstitutional in taking away the money from these organisations,” he said.
Order to restore funding
“The judgments are saying that the US administration should return funding to its overseas broadcasters, which include Voice of America [and] Radio Free Asia.”
He said that in America, they can lay people off without a loss, and they can still remain employees. But these conditions did not apply for overseas employees.
“Basically, all the overseas staff have been staff let go, except a very small number in the US who are on visas, dependent on their employment, and they have spoken out about this publicly.
“They have got 60 days to find a job, a new sponsor for them, or they could face deportation to places like China, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
“So for the former employees, at the moment, we are just waiting to see how this all plays out.”
Armbruster said there were hints that a Trump administration could take such action during the election campaign, when the Trump team had flagged issues about the media.
Speed ‘totally unexpected’
However, he added the speed at which this has happened “was totally unexpected”.
“And the judge ruled on that. He said that it is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary, capricious action, basically, random and unexplained.
“In short, the defendants had no method or approach towards shutting down USAGM that this Court could discern.”
Armbruster said the US Congress funds the USAGM, and the agency has a responsibility to disburse that funding to Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia.
The judge ruled that the President does not have the authority to withhold that funding, he said.
“We were funded through till September to the end of the financial year in the US.
“In terms of how quickly [the executive order] came, it was a big surprise to all of us. Not totally unexpected that this would be happening, but not this way, not this hard.”
BenarNews ‘gave a voice’ The BenarNews Pacific bureau was initially set up two-and-a-half years ago but evolved into a fully-fledged bureau only 12 months ago. It had three fulltime staff based in Australia and about 15 stringers and commentators across the region.
“We built up this fantastic network of people, and the response has been fantastic, just like Radio New Zealand [Pacific],” Armbruster said.
“We were doing a really good thing and having some really amazing stories on our pages, and big successes. It gave a voice to a whole lot of Pacific journalists and commentators to tell stories from perspectives that were not being presented in other forums.
“It is hard to say if we will come back because there has been a lot of court orders issued recently under this current US administration, and they sometimes are not complied with, or are very slowly complied with, which is why we are still in the process.”
However, Armbruster remains hopeful there will be “some interesting news” next week.
“The judgment also has a little bit of a kicker in the tail, because it is not just an order to do [restore funding].
“It is an order to turn up on the first day of each month, and to appraise the court of what action is [the USAGM] taking to disburse the funds.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia.
“Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”
There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk.
He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.
From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in hundreds of years.
Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.
“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”
Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.
The Pope’s Easter Blessing Video: AP
The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.
Between a rock and a hard place Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.
His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.
He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.
The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.
Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people — that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.
At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.
Impact on the Catholic Church In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.
He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.
He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.
Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment. Image: Tandag Diocese
Love for our common home The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.
Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.
He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.
Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.
Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).
Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.
Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.
With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.
Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.
Cardinals use a centuries-old voting process to elect a new pope, complete with smoke signals to indicate the outcome. And the next papal conclave will be the most diverse in Catholic history.
— The Conversation U.S. (@ConversationUS) April 21, 2025
Catholicism in the modern age Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.
He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.
Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.
It was a deal for the cretinous, hammered out by the less than bright for less than honourable goals. But AUKUS, the trilateral security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is now finally receiving the broader opprobrium it should have had from the outset. Importantly, criticism is coming from those who have, at points, swooned at the prospect of acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability assuming, erroneously, that Australia somehow needs it.
A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank has found that AUKUS, despite the increasingly vain promise of supplying the Royal Australian Navy with nuclear powered submarines in 2032, has already become its own, insatiable beast. As beast it is, with the cost over the next four years for the submarine program coming in at A$17.3 billion, exceeding by some margin the capital budget of the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) at A$12.7 billion. One of the authors of the report, Marcus Hellyer, notes that “in terms of acquisition spending, the SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine] enterprise has already become the ADF’s [Australian Defence Force’s] ‘fourth service’.”
The report notes some remarkable figures. Expenditure on SSNs is estimated to be somewhere between A$53 billion and A$63 billion between 2024-2034, with the next five years of the decade costing approximately A$20 billion. The amount left over for the following years comes in at $33 to $44 billion, necessitating a target of $10 billion annually by the end of the financial decade in the early 2030s. What is astounding is the amount being swallowed up by the ADF’s investment program in maritime capabilities, which will, over the coming decade, come to 38% of the total investment.
The SSN program has made its fair share in distorting the budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total budget of A$330 billion. But the SSN budget of $53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than either the domains of land and air relevant to Australia’s defence. “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is,” the report notes with gravity. “Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”
To add to the more specialist literature calling large parts of AUKUS expenditure into question comes the emergence of disquiet in political ranks. Despite the craven and cowardly bipartisan approval of Australia’s dottiest military venture to date, former Labor senator Doug Cameron, who fronts the Labor Against War group, is a symptom of growing dissent. “There are other more realistic and cost-effective strategies to protect our territorial integrity without subjugating ourselves to a dangerous, unpredictable and unworthy Trump administration.”
On the other side of the political aisle, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is pessimistically inclined to the view that Australia will never get those much heralded submarines. “There will be Australian sailors serving on US submarines, and we’ll provide them with a base in Western Australia.” Furthermore, Australia would have “lost both sovereignty and security and a lot of money as well.”
The spineless disposition of Australia’s political cadres may prove irrelevant to the forced obsolescence of the agreement, given the scrutiny of AUKUS in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The pugilistic nature of the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration on all countries, friendly or adversarial, has brought particular focus on the demands on naval and submarine construction. Senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, told an AUKUS dinner in Washington this month that “We are already having trouble getting these ships and subs on time [and] on budget. Increase those prices – it’s going to be a problem.”
Taine’s point is logical enough, given that steel and aluminium have been targeted by particularly hefty rates. Given the array of products requiring exchange in the AUKUS arrangement, tariffs would, the senator reasons, “slow us down and make things harder”.
Another blow also looms. On April 9, the White House ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comb through the procurement of US Navy vessels in order “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes” and contribute to the Trump administration’s Maritime Action Plan. Consistent with Trump’s near obsession of reviving national industry, the order seeks “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.”
Australian taxpayers have every reason to be further worried about this, given the order’s emphasis that US departments and agencies pursue “all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the US to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the US”. Given that that US submarine industrial base is already promised $US3 billion from Australia’s pockets, with $500 million already transferred in February, the delicious exploitation of Canberra’s stupidity continues apace.
In the UK, the House of Commons Defence Committee this month announced a parliamentary inquiry into the defence pact, which will evaluate the agreement in light of changes that have taken place since 2021. “AUKUS has been underway for three years now,” remarked Defence Committee chairman and Labour MP, Tan Dhesi. “The inquiry will examine the progress made against each of the two pillars, and ask how any challenges could be addressed.”
The first pillar, perennially spectral, stresses the submarine component, both in terms of transferring Virginia class SSNs to Australia and the construction of a bespoke nuclear-powered AUKUS submarine; the second focuses on the technological spread of artificial intelligence, quantum capabilities, hypersonic advances and cyber warfare. While Dhesi hopes that the inquiry may throw up the possibility of expanding the second pillar, beady eyes will be keen to see the near non-existent state regarding the first. But even the second pillar lacks definition, prompting Kaine to suggest the need for “some definition and some choices”. Nebulous, amorphous and foolish, this absurd pact continues to sunder.
It was a deal for the cretinous, hammered out by the less than bright for less than honourable goals. But AUKUS, the trilateral security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is now finally receiving the broader opprobrium it should have had from the outset. Importantly, criticism is coming from those who have, at points, swooned at the prospect of acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability assuming, erroneously, that Australia somehow needs it.
A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank has found that AUKUS, despite the increasingly vain promise of supplying the Royal Australian Navy with nuclear powered submarines in 2032, has already become its own, insatiable beast. As beast it is, with the cost over the next four years for the submarine program coming in at A$17.3 billion, exceeding by some margin the capital budget of the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) at A$12.7 billion. One of the authors of the report, Marcus Hellyer, notes that “in terms of acquisition spending, the SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine] enterprise has already become the ADF’s [Australian Defence Force’s] ‘fourth service’.”
The report notes some remarkable figures. Expenditure on SSNs is estimated to be somewhere between A$53 billion and A$63 billion between 2024-2034, with the next five years of the decade costing approximately A$20 billion. The amount left over for the following years comes in at $33 to $44 billion, necessitating a target of $10 billion annually by the end of the financial decade in the early 2030s. What is astounding is the amount being swallowed up by the ADF’s investment program in maritime capabilities, which will, over the coming decade, come to 38% of the total investment.
The SSN program has made its fair share in distorting the budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total budget of A$330 billion. But the SSN budget of $53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than either the domains of land and air relevant to Australia’s defence. “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is,” the report notes with gravity. “Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”
To add to the more specialist literature calling large parts of AUKUS expenditure into question comes the emergence of disquiet in political ranks. Despite the craven and cowardly bipartisan approval of Australia’s dottiest military venture to date, former Labor senator Doug Cameron, who fronts the Labor Against War group, is a symptom of growing dissent. “There are other more realistic and cost-effective strategies to protect our territorial integrity without subjugating ourselves to a dangerous, unpredictable and unworthy Trump administration.”
On the other side of the political aisle, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is pessimistically inclined to the view that Australia will never get those much heralded submarines. “There will be Australian sailors serving on US submarines, and we’ll provide them with a base in Western Australia.” Furthermore, Australia would have “lost both sovereignty and security and a lot of money as well.”
The spineless disposition of Australia’s political cadres may prove irrelevant to the forced obsolescence of the agreement, given the scrutiny of AUKUS in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The pugilistic nature of the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration on all countries, friendly or adversarial, has brought particular focus on the demands on naval and submarine construction. Senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, told an AUKUS dinner in Washington this month that “We are already having trouble getting these ships and subs on time [and] on budget. Increase those prices – it’s going to be a problem.”
Taine’s point is logical enough, given that steel and aluminium have been targeted by particularly hefty rates. Given the array of products requiring exchange in the AUKUS arrangement, tariffs would, the senator reasons, “slow us down and make things harder”.
Another blow also looms. On April 9, the White House ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comb through the procurement of US Navy vessels in order “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes” and contribute to the Trump administration’s Maritime Action Plan. Consistent with Trump’s near obsession of reviving national industry, the order seeks “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.”
Australian taxpayers have every reason to be further worried about this, given the order’s emphasis that US departments and agencies pursue “all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the US to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the US”. Given that that US submarine industrial base is already promised $US3 billion from Australia’s pockets, with $500 million already transferred in February, the delicious exploitation of Canberra’s stupidity continues apace.
In the UK, the House of Commons Defence Committee this month announced a parliamentary inquiry into the defence pact, which will evaluate the agreement in light of changes that have taken place since 2021. “AUKUS has been underway for three years now,” remarked Defence Committee chairman and Labour MP, Tan Dhesi. “The inquiry will examine the progress made against each of the two pillars, and ask how any challenges could be addressed.”
The first pillar, perennially spectral, stresses the submarine component, both in terms of transferring Virginia class SSNs to Australia and the construction of a bespoke nuclear-powered AUKUS submarine; the second focuses on the technological spread of artificial intelligence, quantum capabilities, hypersonic advances and cyber warfare. While Dhesi hopes that the inquiry may throw up the possibility of expanding the second pillar, beady eyes will be keen to see the near non-existent state regarding the first. But even the second pillar lacks definition, prompting Kaine to suggest the need for “some definition and some choices”. Nebulous, amorphous and foolish, this absurd pact continues to sunder.
Back in 1982, a young Mel Gibson starred as a foreign correspondent who was dropped into Jakarta during revolutionary chaos in The Year of Living Dangerously. The 1967 events the movie depicted were real enough, but Mel Gibson’s correspondent Guy Hamilton was made up for what was essentially a romantic drama.
There was no romance and a lot more real life 25 years later in Balibo, another movie with Australian journalists in harm’s way during Indonesian upheaval.
Anthony La Paglia had won awards for his performance as Roger East, a journalist killed in what was then East Timor — now Timor-Leste — in December 1975. East was killed while investigating the fate of five other journalists — including New Zealander Guy Cunningham — who was killed during the Indonesian invasion two months earlier.
The Correspondent has a happier ending but is still a tough watch — especially for its subject.
Met in London newsrooms
I first met Peter Greste in newsrooms in London about 30 years ago. He had worked for Reuters, CNN, and the BBC — going on to become a BBC correspondent in Afghanistan.
He later reported from Belgrade, Santiago, and then Nairobi, from where he appeared regularly on RNZ’s Nine to Noon as an African news correspondent. Greste later joined the English-language network of the Doha-based Al Jazeera and became a worldwide story himself while filling in as the correspondent in Cairo.
Actor Richard Roxburgh as jailed journalist Peter Greste in The Correspondent alongside Al Jazeera colleagues Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed. Image: The Correspondent/RNZ
Greste and two Egyptian colleagues, Baher Mohamed and Mohamed Fahmy, were arrested in late 2013 on trumped-up charges of aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation labeled “terrorist” by the new Egyptian regime of the time.
Six months later he was sentenced to seven years in jail for “falsifying news” and smearing the reputation of Egypt itself. Mohamed was sentenced to 10 years.
Media organisations launched an international campaign for their freedom with the slogan “Journalism is not a crime”. Peter’s own family became familiar faces in the media while working hard for his release too.
Peter Greste was deported to Australia in February 2015. The deal stated he would serve the rest of his sentence there, but the Australian government did not enforce that. Instead, Greste became a professor of media and journalism, currently at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Movie consultant
Among other things, he has also been a consultant on The Correspondent — now in cinemas around New Zealand — with Richard Roxborough cast as Greste himself.
Australian professor of journalism Peter Greste …. posing for a photograph when he was an Al Jazeera journalist in Kibati village, near Goma, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo on 7 August 2013. Image: IFEX media freedom/APR
“I eventually came to realise it’s not me that’s up there on the screen. It’s the product of a whole bunch of creatives. And the result is … more like a painting rather than a photograph,” Greste told Mediawatch.
“Over the years I’ve written about it, I’ve spoken about it countless times. I’ve built a career on it. But I wasn’t really anticipating the emotional impact of seeing the craziness of my arrest, the confusion of that period, the claustrophobia of the cell, the sheer frustration of the crazy trial and the really discombobulating moment of my release.
“But there is another very difficult story about what happened to a colleague of mine in Somalia, which I haven’t spoken about publicly. Seeing that on screen was actually pretty gut-wrenching.”
In 2005, his BBC colleague Kate Peyton was shot alongside him on their first day in on assignment in Somalia. She died soon after.
“That was probably the toughest day of my entire life far over and above anything I went through in Egypt. But I am glad that they put it in [The Correspondent]. It underlines … the way in which journalism is under attack. What happened to us in Egypt wasn’t a random, isolated incident — but part of a much longer pattern we’re seeing continue to this day.”
Supporters of the jailed British-Egyptian human rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah take part in a candlelight vigil outside Downing Street in London, United Kingdom, as he begins a complete hunger strike while world leaders arrive for COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022. Image: RNZ Mediawatch/AFP
‘Owed his life’
Greste says he “owes his life” to fellow prisoner Alaa Abd El-Fattah — an Egyptian activist who is also in the film.
“There’s a bit of artistic licence in the way it was portrayed but . . . he is easily one of the most intelligent, astute and charismatic humanitarians I’ve ever come across. He was one of the main pro-democracy activists who was behind the Arab Spring revolution in 2011 — a true democrat.
“He also inspired me to write the letters that we smuggled out of prison that described our arrest not as an attack on … what we’d actually come to represent. And that was press freedom.
“That helped frame the campaign that ultimately got me out. So, for both psychological and political reasons, I feel like I owe him my life.
“There was nothing in our reporting that confirmed the allegations against us. So I started to drag up all sorts of demons from the past. I started thinking maybe this is the universe punishing me for sins of the past. I was obviously digging up that particular moment as one of the most extreme and tragic moments. It took a long time for me to get past it.
“He’d been in prison a lot because of his activism, so he understood the psychology of it. He also understood the politics of it in ways that I could never do as a newcomer.”
“Unfortunately, he is still there. He should have been released on September 29th last year. His mother launched a hunger strike in London . . . so I actually joined her on hunger strike earlier this year to try and add pressure.
“If this movie also draws a bit of attention to his case, then I think that’s an important element.”
Another wrinkle
Another wrinkle in the story was the situation of his two Egyptian Al Jazeera colleagues.
Greste was essentially a stranger to them, having only arrived in Egypt shortly before their arrest.
The film shows Greste clashing with Fahmy, who later sued Al Jazeera. Fahmy felt the international pressure to free Greste was making their situation worse by pushing the Egyptian regime into a corner.
“To call it a confrontation is probably a bit of an understatement. We had some really serious arguments and sometimes they got very, very heated. But I want audiences to really understand Fahmy’s worldview in this film.
“He and I had very different understandings of what was going … and how those differences played out.
“I’ve got a hell of a lot of respect for him. He is like a brother to me. That doesn’t mean we always agreed with each other and doesn’t mean we always got on with each other like any siblings, I suppose.”
His colleagues were eventually released on bail shortly after Greste’s deportation in 2015.
Fahmy renounced his Egyptian citizenship and was later deported to Canada, while Mohamed was released on bail and eventually pardoned.
Retrial — all ‘reconvicted’
“After I was released there was a retrial … and we were all reconvicted. They were finally released and pardoned, but the pardon didn’t extend to me.
“I can’t go back because I’m still a convicted ‘terrorist’ and I still have an outstanding prison sentence to serve, which is a little bit weird. Any country that has an extradition treaty with Egypt is a problem. There are a fairly significant number of those across the Middle East and Africa.”
Greste told Mediawatch his conviction was even flagged in transit in Auckland en route from New York to Sydney. He was told he failed a character test.
“I was able to resolve it. I had some friends in Canberra and were able to sort it out, but I was told in no uncertain terms I’m not allowed into New Zealand without getting a visa because of that criminal record.
“If I’m traveling to any country I have to say … I was convicted on terrorism offences. Generally speaking, I can explain it, but it often takes a lot of bureaucratic process to do that.”
Greste’s first account of his time in jail — The First Casualty — was published in 2017. Most of the book was about media freedom around the world, lamenting that the numbers of journalists jailed and killed increased after his release.
Something that Greste also now ponders a lot in his current job as a professor of media and journalism.
Ten years on from that, it is worse again. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says at least 124 journalists and media workers were killed last year, nearly two-thirds of them Palestinians killed by Israel in its war in Gaza.
The book has now been updated and republished as The Correspondent.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
BAE Systems Australia has entered into a 10-year Head Agreement with Boeing Defence Australia to deliver its Vehicle Management System (VMS) for the latter’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat uncrewed aircraft development, the company announced on 10 April. According to BAE Systems, the VMS provides control of the air vehicle, with the company also providing elements of […]
Shrinking budgets and job insecurity means there are fewer opportunities for young journalists, and that’s bad news, especially in regional Australia, reports 360info
ANALYSIS:By Jee Young Lee of the University of Canberra
Australia risks losing a generation of young journalists, particularly in the regions where they face the closure of news outlets, job insecurity, lower pay and limited career progression.
Ironically, it is regional news providers’ audiences who remain among the most engaged and loyal, demanding reliable, trustworthy news.
Yet it’s exactly the area where those closures, shrinking newsroom budgets and a reliance on traditional print-centric workflows over digital-first strategies are hitting hardest, making it difficult to attract and retain emerging journalists.
And in an industry where women make up a substantial portion of the workforce and of those studying journalism, figures show the number of young females in regional news outlets declined by about a third over 15 years — a much greater decline than experienced by their male colleagues.
Without meaningful and collaborative efforts to invest in young professionals and sustain strong local newsrooms, the future of local journalism could be severely compromised.
Reversing the trend requires investing in new talent, which might be achieved through targeted funding initiatives, newsroom-university collaborations and regional innovation hubs that reduce costs while supporting emerging journalists. It also requires improved working conditions and fostering innovation.
Why it matters Local journalism is the backbone of Australian news media, playing a crucial role in keeping communities informed and connected.
The Australian News Index shows community and local news outlets made up 88 percent of the 1226 news organisations operating across print, digital, radio and television in 2024.
These community-driven publications and broadcasters play a critical role in covering stories that matter most to Australians, reporting on councils, regional issues and everyday stories that affect people.
Yet local newsrooms face growing challenges in sustaining their workforce and attracting new talent, raising concerns about the future of journalism beyond metropolitan centres.
Fewer opportunities Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the proportion of journalists working full-time has steadily declined in both major cities and regional Australia.
In major cities, the proportion of journalists working full-time dropped from 74 percent in 2006 to 67 percent in 2021. In regional areas, the decline was even more pronounced — falling from 72 percent to 62 percent over the same period.
This widening gap suggests that regional journalists are increasingly shifting to part-time or freelance work, largely due to economic pressures on local news organisations.
Newspaper and periodical editors are more likely to work full-time in major cities (68 percent) compared with regional areas (59 percent). Similarly, a smaller proportion of print journalists are fulltime in regional areas.
In contrast, broadcast journalism maintains a more stable employment in regional areas.
Television and radio journalists in regional Australia are slightly more likely to work fulltime than their counterparts in major cities.
The pay gap Regional journalists earn less than their metropolitan counterparts. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows median weekly pay for full-time journalists in major cities is $1737 compared to $1412 for their regional counterparts.
The disparity is slightly greater for parttime regional journalists.
Lower salaries, combined with fewer full-time opportunities, make it difficult for regional outlets to attract and retain talent.
Fewer young journalists Aspiring to become (and stay) a journalist is increasingly difficult, with many facing unstable job prospects, low pay and limited full-time opportunities.
This is particularly true for young journalists, who are forced to navigate freelance work, short-term contracts or leave the profession altogether.
The number of journalists aged 18 to 24 has steadily decreased, falling by almost a third from 1425 in 2006 to 990 in 2021. The decline is even steeper in regional areas, falling from 518 in 2006 to just 300 in 2021.
Young journalists are also less likely to have a fulltime job. In 2006, 92 percent of journalists aged 18 to 24 held a fulltime job but this had fallen to 85 percent in 2021, although they are significantly more likely to be employed fulltime compared to those in major cities.
This demonstrates that regional newsrooms can offer greater job security temporarily but the overall decline in young journalists entering the profession — particularly in regional areas — signals a need for targeted recruitment strategies, financial incentives and training programmes to sustain local journalism.
Data also reveals an overall decline in journalism graduates entering the news industry. The number of journalists aged 20 to 29 with journalism qualifications has dropped significantly, from 1618 in 2011 to 1255 in 2021.
This decline is marginally more pronounced in regional journalism, where the number of young, qualified journalists fell from 486 in 2006 to 367 in 2021.
Loss of opportunity for women In Australia, women make up a significant portion of the journalism workforce, likely reflecting the growth in young women studying journalism at universities.
Yet the decline in young female qualified journalists, particularly in regional areas, further highlights the challenges faced by the regional news industry.
The number of female journalists aged 20 to 29 with journalism qualifications fell by 29 percent to 803 between 2006 and 2021, while the number of male journalists in the same age group declined by just 8 percent.
The decline of young female journalists was an even more dramatic 33 percent in regional areas falling from 354 in 2006 to 236 in 2021, while the number of male journalists in regional areas increased slightly in the same period, from 132 in 2006 to 137 in 2021.
Time for a reset There is a need to rethink how journalism education prepares students for the workforce.
Some researchers argue that journalism students should be taught to better understand the evolving news landscape and its labour dynamics, ensuring they are prepared for the realities of the profession.
This practical approach, integrating training on labour rights and the economic realities of journalism into the curriculum, offers critical insights into the future of local journalism.
Pursuing a degree in arts, including journalism or media studies, is now among the most expensive in Australia. Many young and talented students still pursue journalism, even in the face of industry instability.
However, if the industry continues to signal to young talent that journalism offers little job security, low pay, and limited career progression — particularly in the regions — it risks losing a generation of passionate and skilled journalists.
Investing in new talent, improving working conditions and fostering innovation is critical for the industry to build resilience and strengthen community news coverage.
Dr Jee Young Lee is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Design at the University of Canberra. Her research focuses on the social and cultural impacts of digital communication and technologies in the media and creative industries. Originally published underCreative Commons by360info.
Hundreds of university staff and students in Melbourne and Sydney called on their vice-chancellors to cancel pro-Israel events earlier this month, write Michael West Media’s Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon
While Australia’s universities continue to repress pro-Palestine peace protests, they gave the green light to pro-Israel events earlier this month, sparking outrage from anti-war protesters over the hypocrisy.
Israeli lobby groups StandWithUs Australia (SWU) and Israel-IS organised a series of university events this week which featured Israel Defense Force (IDF) reservists who have served during the war in Gaza, two of whom lost family members in the Hamas resistance attack on October 7, 2023.
The events were promoted as “an immersive VR experience with an inspiring interfaith panel” discussing the importance of social cohesion, on and off campus.”
Hundreds of staff and students at Monash, Sydney Uni, UNSW and UTS signed letters calling on their universities to “act swiftly to cancel the SWU event and make clear that organisations and individuals who worked with the Israel Defense Forces did not have a place on UNSW campuses.”
SWU is a global charity organisation which supports Israel and fights all conduct it perceives to be “antisemitic”. It campaigns against the United Nations and international NGOs’ findings against Israel and is currently supporting actions to suspend United States students supporting Palestine.
It established an office in Sydney in 2022 and Michael Gencher, who previously worked at the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was appointed as CEO.
The event’s co-sponsor, Israel-IS, is a similar propaganda outfit whose mission is to “connect with people before they connect with ideas” particularly through “cutting edge technologies like VR and AI.”
Among their 18 staff, one employee’s role is “IDF coordinator’” while two employees serve as “heads of Influencer Academy”.
The events were a test for management at Monash, UTS, UNSW and USyd to see how far each would go in cooperating with the Israel lobby.
Some events cancelled At Monash, an open letter criticising the event was circulated by staff and students. The event was then cancelled without explanation.
At UNSW, 51 staff and postgraduate students signed an open letter to vice-chancellor Atilla Brungs, calling for the event’s cancellation. It was signed on their behalf by Jessica Whyte, an associate professor of philosophy in arts and law and Noam Peleg, associate professor in the Faculty of Law and Justice.
Prior to the scheduled event, Michael West Media sent questions to UNSW. After the event was scheduled to occur, the university responded to MWM, informing us that it had not taken place.
As of today, two days after the event was scheduled, vice-chancellor Brungs has not responded to the letter.
UTS warning to students The UTS branch of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students partnered with Israel-IS in organising the UTS event, in alignment with their core “pillars” of Zionism and activism. The student group seeks to “promote a positive image of Israel on campus” to achieve its vision of a world where Jewish students are committed to Israel.
UTS Students’ Association, Palestinian Youth Society and UTS Muslim Student Society wrote to management but deputy vice-chancellor Kylie Readman rejected pleas. She replied that the event’s organisers had guaranteed it would be “a small private event focused on minority Israeli perspectives” and that speakers would only speak in a personal capacity.
While acknowledging the conflict in the Middle East was stressful for many at UTS, she then warned students, “UTS has not received formal notification of any intent to protest, as is required under the campus policy. As such, I must advise that any protest activity planned for 2nd April will be unauthorised. I would urge you to encourage students not to participate in an unauthorised protest.”
Students who allegedly breach campus policies can face disciplinary proceedings that can lead to suspension.
UTS Student Association president Mia Campbell told MWM, “The warning given by UTS about protesting definitely felt intimidating and frightening to a number of students, including myself.
“Especially as a law student, misconduct allegations can affect your admission to the profession . . . but with all other avenues of communication exhausted between us and the university, it felt like we didn’t have a choice.
I don’t want to look back on what I was doing during this genocide and have done any less than what was possible at the time.
A UTS student reads the names of Gaza children killed in Israel’s War on Gaza. Image: Wendy Bacon/MWM
Sombre, but quietly angry protest
The UTS protest was sombre but quietly angry. Speakers read from lists naming dead Palestinian children.
One speaker, who has lost 120 members of his extended family in Gaza, explained why he protested: “We have to be backed into a corner, told we can’t protest, told we can’t do anything. We’ve exhausted every single policy . . . Add to all that we are threatened with misconduct.”
Do you think we can stay silent while there are people on campus who may have played a part in the killings in Gaza?
SWU at University of Sydney University of Sydney staff and students who signed an open letter received no reply before the event.
Activists from USyd staff in support of Palestine, Students Against War and Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 began protesting outside the Michael Spence building that houses the university’s senior executives on the Wednesday evening, April 2.
Escorted by UTS security, three SWU representatives arrived. A small group was admitted. Soon afterwards, the participants could be seen from below in the building’s meeting room.
A few protesters remained and booed the attendees as they left. These included Mark Leach, a far right Christian Zionist and founder of pro-Israeli group Never Again is Now. Later on X, he condemned the protesters and described Israel as a “multi-ethnic enclave of civilisation.”
Warning letters for students
Several student activists have received letters recently warning them about breaching the new USyd code of conduct regulating protests. USyd has also adopted a definition of anti-semitism which critics say could restrict criticism of Israel.
A Jews against Occupation ’48 speaker, Judith Treanor, said, “Welcoming this organisation makes a mockery of this university’s stated values of respect, non-harassment, and anti-racism.
“In the context of this university’s adoption of draconian measures to stifle freedom of expression in relation to Palestine, the decision to host this event promoting Israel reveals a shocking level of hypocrisy and a huge abuse of power.”
Jews Against the Occupation ‘48: L-R Suzie Gold, Laurie Izaks MacSween and Judith Treanor at the protest. Image: Vivienne Moore/MWM
No stranger to USyd
Michael Gencher is no stranger to USyd. Since October 2023, he has opposed student encampments and street protests.
On one occasion, he visited the USyd protest student encampment in support of Palestine with Richard Kemp, a retired British army commander who tirelessly promotes the IDF. Kemp’s most recent X post congratulates Hungary for withdrawing from “the International Criminal Kangaroo Court. Other countries should reject this political court and follow suit.”
Kemp and Gencher filmed themselves attempting to interrogate students about their knowledge of conflict in the Middle East on May 21, 2024, but the students refused to be provoked and declined to engage.
In May 2024, Gercher helped organise a joint rally at USyd with Zionist Group Together with Israel, a partner of far-right group Australian Jewish Association. Extreme Zionist Ofir Birenbaum, who was recently exposed as covertly filming staff at an inner city cafe, Cairo Takeaway, helped organise the rally.
Students at the USyd encampment told MWM that they experienced provocative behaviour towards them during the May rally.
Opposition to StandWithUs Those who oppose the SWU campus events draw on international findings condemning Israel and its IDF, explained in similar letters to university leaders.
After the USyd event, those who signed a letter received a response from vice-chancellor Mark Scott.
He explained, “We host a broad range of activities that reflect different perspectives — we recognise our role as a place for debate and disagreeing well, which includes tolerance of varied opinions.”
His response ignored the concerns raised, which leaves this question: Why are organisations that reject all international and humanitarian legal findings, including ones of genocide and ethnic cleansing,
being made to feel ‘safe and welcome’ when their critics risk misconduct proceedings?
SWU CEO Michael Gencher went on the attack in the Jewish press:
“We’re seeing a coordinated attempt to intimidate universities into silencing Israeli voices simply because they don’t conform to a radical political narrative.” He accused the academics of spreading “provable lies, dangerous rhetoric, and blatant hypocrisy.”
SWU regards United Nations and other findings against Israel as false.
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission of the authors.
Australia becoming Indo-Pacific standard for military live, virtual and constructive training. Military training has taken on new urgency as the Indo-Pacific region reacts to sterner security threats such as a more aggressive China, and as lessons are absorbed from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. A prime example of the valuable combination of live, virtual and […]
The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.
The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.
The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.
Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.
Why is this migration avenue important? The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.
As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.
As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”
And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.
How does the new visa work? The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.
On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:
education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
Medicare
the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
family tax benefit
childcare subsidy
youth allowance.
They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.
This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.
According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.
Reading the fine print The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).
The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.
First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.
Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.
But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa — a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia — this new visa is not employment-dependent.
Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.
This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.
Who can apply, and how?
To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.
The primary applicant must:
be at least 18 years of age
hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
have been born in Tuvalu — or had a parent or a grandparent born there.
People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.
This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.
Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.
Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.
And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.
Settlement support is crucial With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.
Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.
That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.
A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.
For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.
Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.
Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.
The New Zealand government has released details of its new Defence Capability Plan (DCP), which will see a significant boost to the country’s defence spending in the next financial year to NZ$9 billion (US$5 billion). The new DCP also calls for defence spending to be raised to around 2% of GDP over the next four […]
Hanwha Aerospace recently presented its latest mobile missile system development the High-Performance Launch Rocket System (HPRS) at the Avalon Aerospace 2025 in Australia. The HPRS appears to be derived from the currently fielded K-239 Chunmoo multiple launch rocket system which is in service with both the Republic of Korea military and the Polish Army. Both […]
Australians will vote to elect a new Federal Government on 3 May 2025. For decent Australians the major issue is the Gaza Genocide, the US-backed, Zionist Israeli mass murder of about 0.6 million Indigenous Palestinian children, mothers, women and men, and unforgivable Mainstream Australian complicity in this appalling and ongoing atrocity. The Australian Labor Government with Coalition support has been complicit in the Gaza Genocide in 20 ways and lies for Apartheid Israel in 35 ways.
Mainstream media (with the exception of the Guardian and the Independent) undercount Gaza deaths by a factor of 10 – egregious genocide-ignoring, genocide-denial, holocaust-ignoring and holocaust-denial. Holocaust-ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant holocaust-denial because the latter at least permits public refutation and public debate (subject to Mainstream gate-keepers of course).
As of 20 January 2025, the expertly estimated 553,000 Gaza deaths from violence and imposed deprivation included 391,000 children, 52,000 women and 112,000 men. Palestinian deaths in the century-long Palestinian Genocide and Palestinian Holocaust now total 2.7 million, with 0.2 million being from violence and the remainder from imposed deprivation. Deaths in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust from violence and deprivation totalled 5-6 million (eminent Jewish Zionist British historian Professor Sir Martin Gilbert, Oxford University, Jewish History Atlas and Atlas of the Holocaust).
2025 Australian Election Fraud: Mainstream Australia ignores, minimizes and threatens truth-telling about the Gaza Genocide and Palestinian Holocaust.
Australia has an excellent compulsory and preferential voting system in which a valid vote for candidates for the government-determining House of Representatives means recording preference for all candidates in numerical order, with second preferences being considered if a candidate fails to gain 50% or more of the primary vote. Australians will choose between Labor (presently in Government), the Liberal Party-National Party Coalition (presently in Opposition), pro-climate action Teal Independents, other Independents, and those protesting the Gaza Genocide — the Greens, Senator Lidia Thorpe, Senator Fatima Payman’s Australia’s Voice party, and Socialists.
Of the present 226 Federal MPs (75 Senators and 151 Members of the House of Representatives or MHRs) it appears that only the 15 Greens, ex-Green Senator Lidia Thorpe and ex-Labor Senator Fatima Payman strongly demand an immediate end to the Killing and Occupation by genocidally racist Apartheid Israel – shame, Australia, shame. Labor voted at the UNGA for a Ceasefire and an end to the Occupation, for which it was condemned by the fervently pro-Israel Coalition and was also falsely condemned as “anti-Israel” and “anti-semitic” by Apartheid Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (for whom the International Criminal Court [ICC] has issued an arrest warrant for war crimes). However Labor shamefully Abstained from a UNGA Resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal within 1 year. The Coalition is far worse than Labor on the Gaza Genocide and unforgivably declared (like the US and Hungary) that it would not enforce ICC arrest warrants for child-killing Zionist Israeli war criminals Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
Decent Australians are speaking out about the Gaza Genocide. Thus, for example, (1) Professor Stuart Rees (founder of the internationally prestigious Sydney Peace Prize and author of Cruelty or Humanity ) and colleagues ask that Australians should Vote for Humanity. (2) The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN): “Vote with Palestine. Palestine is on the ballot this election. With the federal election just weeks away, we have a crucial opportunity to elect representatives who will take a stand for justice and accountability. Together we can make ending Australia’s support for Israel’s genocide, apartheid and illegal occupation a priority at the ballot box. Sign the People’s Pledge for Palestine today, and your local election candidates will be notified.” (3) The anti-racist Jewish Council of Australia demands an end to the Killing and Occupation. (4) Over 500 anti-racist Jewish Australians endorsed a full-page Mainstream newspaper advertisement stating “Jewish Australians say NO to ethnic cleansing.” (5) For details of prominent anti-racist Jews including such Australian Jews, Google “Jews Against Racist Zionism.” (6) Hundreds of anti-racist Jewish Australians protested the Gaza Genocide outside the Victorian Parliament wearing T-shirts stating (White text on Black): “JEWS for a FREE PALESTINE” – I wear this T-shirt everywhere and am gratified by the enthusiastic public support from total strangers, decent men and women of Australia. (7) Senator Fatima Payman’s “Australia’s Voice” party. (8) “Muslim Votes Matter.”
In 2024 I published a huge book, Gideon Polya, Free Palestine. End Apartheid Israel, Human Rights Denial, Gaza Massacre, Child Killing, Occupation & Palestinian Genocide. The sub-title lists 6 key actions for a Free Palestine for all its Jewish, Indigenous Palestinian and other inhabitants as well as the 7 million Exiled Palestinians who should be permitted to return to the country of their forebears for 4 millennia. Decent Australians simply cannot support candidates rejecting these humane propositions. The key action is “End… Human Rights Denial”: all human rights can and should be immediately restored to all the Indigenous Palestinians by the simple stroke of a pen and this would be utterly unexceptional to decent people. However, the genocidally racist Zionists won’t agree to this: they want all the land of Palestine, plus other lands between the Nile and the Euphrates, but not the Indigenous inhabitants who are to be killed, expelled or confined forever to crowded concentration camps.
Instead of demanding an immediate end to the Killing and Occupation, Federal and New South Wales Labor Government and Coalition Opposition MPs have excited “antisemitism hysteria”, and “terrorism hysteria” and passed draconian laws threatening critics of Australia-violating and genocidally racist Apartheid Israel and its Zionist supporters with fines and imprisonment. The fervently Zionist Victorian Labor Government and Coalition Opposition MPs promise more of the same. To Coalition-supported war criminal Netanyahu “anti-Israel” is “anti-Semitism” and support for “terrorism.” However, Australians criticizing Apartheid Israel and its supporters now do so under the cloud of a potential 2 years’ mandatory imprisonment for asserted “anti-Semitism” and 6 years’ mandatory imprisonment for asserted support for ”terrorism.” For 57 years Apartheid Israel has denied Occupied Palestinians all the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is now successfully threatening the free speech of Australians. With the collaboration of university vice chancellors this Zionist threat to free speech now extends to the academics and students of all 39 taxpayer-funded Australian universities, this also jeopardizing Australia’s huge A$40 billion per annum Education Export industry.
Backed by both Labor and the Coalition, Australia belongs to the all-European, genocide-complicit, anti-Semitic and holocaust-ignoring International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) that is anti-Jewish anti-Semitic and anti-Arab anti-Semitic by falsely defaming anti-racist Jews, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as assertedly “anti-Semitic” for condemning Apartheid Israeli crimes. The IHRA is also egregiously holocaust denying by ignoring all WW2 holocausts other than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust, notably (deaths from violence and imposed deprivation in brackets) the WW2 Sinti and Roma Holocaust (1 million), the WW2 Polish Holocaust (6 million), the WW2 Soviet Holocaust (23 million), the European Holocaust (30 million), the WW2 Chinese Holocaust (35-40 million Chinese deaths under the Japanese, 1937-1945), and the WW2 Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine; 6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death fort strategic reasons in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Odisha by the British with food-denying Australian complicity). Indeed the IHRA ignores some 70 genocides and holocausts (Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”, “US-imposed, Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide” and “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”). Over 40 anti-racist Jewish organizations have rejected the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.
Instead of listening to the humane and expert opinions of numerous outstanding and patriotic anti-racist Jewish Australians from Sir Isaac Isaacs (first Australian-born Governor General of Australia) to Professors Peter Singer, Dennis Altman and Eva Cox (Google “Jews Against Racist Zionism”), Labor, the Coalition and the Mainstream (cowardly, stupid and ignorant at best) pander to the false and racist assertions of mendacious and fanatical Zionists with fervent support for Australia-violating Apartheid Israel. Of course those supporting Apartheid Israel are supporting the vile, neo-Nazi crime of Apartheid. Those supporting Apartheid are utterly unfit for decent company, public life and public office in a one-person-one-democracy like Australia.
I am a Jewish Holocaust-impacted, anti-racist, Jewish Australian with a sole national allegiance to the land of my birth, Australia. I come from a very famous Ashkenazi Jewish Hungarian family (ask any mathematician or surgeon). Ashkenazi Jews represent most Jews and are not Semitic, descending from non-Semitic Turkic Khazar converts to Judaism in about the 9th century CE. Indeed DNA analysis shows that I am mostly Ashkenazi Jewish but with zero Middle Eastern (Semitic) contribution. Like other anti-racist Jews in Australia I am subject to vile, false and damaging defamation by Zionist fanatics. Anti-racist Jewish Australian are also subject to false defamation by Mainstream media and politicians who shamelessly ignore anti-Jewish anti-Semitism against anti-racist Jews (the very best of Jews) and routinely indulge in anti-Jewish anti-Semitism themselves by falsely conflating the grossly human rights-violating and genocidal actions of Apartheid Israel with all Jews (this falsely defaming anti-racist Jews and tarnishing the wonderful 3 millennial Jewish humanitarian tradition from the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ “love thy neighbour as thyself” to wonderful present-era Jewish humanitarians from Hannah Arendt to Howard Zinn).
Zionist and pro-Zionist holocaust denial: Mainstream undercounting of 0.6 million Gaza Genocide deaths from violence and deprivation.
Data published by expert epidemiologists in the leading medical journal The Lancet indicate that 64,260 Gazans had been killed violently in 9 months i.e. 110,670 by 20 January 2025 (after 15.5 months of killing). However also estimated in The Lancet, deaths from imposed deprivation may exceed violent deaths by a factor of 4 times i.e. 442,680 by 20 January 2025 (the start of the now Israeli-broken Ceasefire). It is thus estimated that deaths from violence and imposed deprivation total 553,000 (23% of the pre-Gaza Massacre Gaza population of 2.4 million).
Because infants are highly vulnerable, under-5 infant deaths represent 70% of avoidable deaths from deprivation in impoverished countries (Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”), and it can be estimated that the 553,000 Gazan deaths from violence and imposed deprivation by 20 January 2025 include 391,000 children, 52,000 women and 112,000 men. Indeed US President Trump informed by the immense informational resources of the American State has asserted that only 1.7 million Gazans remain and because 0.1 million have fled to Egypt this implies that 0.6 million have been killed, this being in agreement with the estimates from data published in The Lancet.
Danish analyst and author Søren Roest Korsgaard has estimated 810,204 Gaza deaths by 4 April 2025 using the median value of 5.2 non-violent deaths per violent death from 13 conflicts, this corresponding to 698,000 Gaza deaths by 20 January 2025 (Søren Roest Korsgaard, “Quick analysis: Counting the Dead in Gaza,” Rethink Government, April, 2025).
However Western Mainstream media ignore the estimate of about 0.6 million Gaza deaths deriving from the data of expert analyses published in the leading medical journal The Lancet and instead overwhelmingly presently report a 10-fold underestimate of about 50,000 Gaza deaths.
Famed American consumer advocate and social analyst Ralph Nader has commented cogently on this extraordinary “undercounting” of Gaza deaths in interview with famed anti-racist Jewish American journalist Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) and in an analysis published in the August/September 2024 issue of the Capitol Hill Citizen and placed on the US Congressional Record: “The following probative evidence and professional assessments point to a death toll of over 300,000 Palestinians in Gaza with that number at least doubling by end of the year. Why then is the reviled Hamas’ official death count now at about 41,000, accepted by the mass media and most governments, regardless of their view for or against the genocide in Gaza? Hamas is vested in an undercount to temper accusations by their own people that it has not protected them. (Hamas badly under-estimated the total savagery of the Israeli response to its October 7 attack through a mysteriously collapsed multitiered Israeli border security complex.) The Israeli government also prefers an undercount to temper the rising level of international condemnation and boycotts” (EXPOSING THE GAZA DEATH UNDERCOUNT, BY RALPH NADER. HON. JOHN B. LARSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, October 1, 2024)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. For science’s sake, vote the Coalition last.
Nearly 2,000 top scientists, all members of the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, including Nobel Prize winners, have just issued an open letter urgently warning about the Trump Administration’s “wholesale assault on U.S. science”.
They are saying that the actions threaten America’s health, economy and global leadership in research.
In Australia, the anti-science, anti-universities, climate criminal and Trumpist Coalition promises to sack 41,000 public servants (many of whom are scientists or science-informed) and, when previously in office, sacked 40,000 university staff by cutting university funding.
Further, the Coalition refuses to act on International Criminal Court (ICC)-issued war crimes arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, threatens exiting the ICC, and has praised pathologically mendacious Trump as a “big thinker” over his plan to completely ethnically cleanse Gaza of its Indigenous Palestinian inhabitants.
Trump estimates 1.7 million surviving Gazans from a pre-war population of 2.4 million in agreement with expert estimates in the leading medical journal The Lancet of about 0.6 million killed by violence and imposed deprivation.
Kindness and truth constitute the key ethos of humanity, and decent Australians will be compelled to put the Coalition last.
Dr Gideon Polya
Macleod, VIC
Final comments.
The World must respond to the shocking 10-fold “undercounting” of the Gaza Genocide deaths by US, Western and Australian Mainstream media. As a Jewish Holocaust-impacted Jewish scholar I am inescapably bound by the key moral imperatives of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust and indeed of some 70 genocides and holocausts: “zero tolerance for lying”, “zero tolerance for racism”, “bear witness” and “never again to anyone”. Silence is complicity. The silence of Mainstream journalists is shocking but understandable – they submit to management or get sacked. However in Gaza extraordinarily courageous Palestinian journalists are being killed at a frightening rate by the genocidal Zionist Israelis.
On 27 March 2025 I sent the following letter to major Mainstream Australian media (it was not published but is published here as an example of what Mainstream Australian media don’t want their readers to see, hear about or think about: “Australian Mainstream media lying & censorship”:
“The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports 1,671 journalists killed worldwide in the 32 year period 1993-2025 for which the average world population was 6,800 million, this indicating “0.0077 journalists killed per year per million of population”. The anti-racist Jewish American web magazine Mondoweiss reported (25/3/2025): “Hossam Shabat and Mohammad Mansour were the latest Palestinian journalists to be assassinated in Gaza. Responsibility for their killings rests in part on their Western colleagues who have failed to accurately cover Israel’s genocidal assault… Since October 2023, at least 208 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli forces… it is a systematic campaign to eliminate witnesses”. The average population of Gaza in the 1.46 year period of 7 October 2023- 25 March 2025 was 2.4 million (pre-war) + 1.7 million (now, according to Trump) /2 = 2.05 million, this indicating “69.5 journalists killed per year per million of population”, 9,026 times greater than the world average. A scientist and prolific humanitarian writer, I have been rendered invisible in Australia by Zionist defamation, but I am proud that I have defended (necessarily overseas) some 40 humanitarian and variously eminent and maltreated Australian truth-tellers. World silence permits the Gaza Genocide. Silence is complicity”.
The World responded to the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre by Apartheid South Africa (69 Africans killed) by imposing rigorous and ultimately successful global sanctions on the neo-Nazi Apartheid regime. In response to the mass murder of 600,000 Gazans so far (about 9,000 times more than the 69 killed in the Sharpeville Massacre) the World must likewise apply rigorous Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) not just against genocidal Apartheid Israel but against all people, politicians, parties, collectives, companies and countries supporting this genocidally racist and child-killing Apartheid pariah state.
In the 3 May 2025 Australian elections decent Australians will vote topmost for candidates supporting Palestinians human rights (the Greens, Socialists, Lidia Thorpe, and Fatima Payman’s Australia’s Voice), put the Coalition last (for the unforgivable crime of refusing to enforce ICC arrest warrants on war criminal mass murderers of 0.6 million Gazans) and put Zionist-subverted Labor in between.
Known for its cultured quail, Sydney-based Vow has received regulatory approval from Food Standards Australia New Zealand, a first for cultivated meat in the region.
Australian food tech startup Vow has become the first startup to be allowed to sell cultivated meat in more than two geographies.
The Sydney company has apparently received the regulatory green light from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the joint regulator for the Antipodean nations, for its cultured quail, according to an approval report dated today (April 7, 2025) uploaded to the regulator’s website.
It ends a protracted process that started in early 2023 and involved two rounds of public consultation, during which Vow succeeded in getting regulatory clearance to sell the cultivated meat product in Singapore and by extension, Hong Kong (the latter does not have its own regulatory process for novel foods, but relied on approval Singapore under a framework of international cooperation).
In an interview with Green Queen last year, Vow co-founder and CEO George Peppou had predicted that the company would receive approval in Q1 2025, and that prophecy rang true, with the FSANZ approving the application on March 27 and notifying the Food Ministers’ Meeting of its decision today.
“FSANZ conducted a full and independent evidence-based assessment of all media inputs and was satisfied their use and/or presence did not raise any safety concerns,” the agency noted in its assessment.
“At the estimated consumption levels, there were no toxicological concerns related to the cell media or inputs used in the production process,” it said.
Courtesy: Vow
What the FSANZ said about Vow’s cultured quail application
Vow submitted its dossier in February 2023, seeking permission to use “cultured quail cells, derived from embryonic fibroblasts of Japanese quail, as a novel food ingredient” in Australia and New Zealand.
FSANZ issued a call for public comments in December 2023 and another 12 months later. The second round received 22 responses, with each submission considered as part of the agency’s assessment of the cultured quail cells.
The food safety body noted that “cell line suppliers already operate according to good laboratory practices (GLP) and good cell-culturing practices (GCCP) to manage risks”, and therefore, the overall food safety risk for cell lines is “very low”. It added that cell line suppliers aren’t expressly required to ensure that “inputs do not make cell-cultured food unsafe or unsuitable”.
FSANZ further noted that cultivated meat cannot be included in “special purpose foods” like sports foods, infant formula, or food for special medical purposes without additional pre-market assessments.
One public comment brought forward the question of whether cultivated meat products should be categorized as ultra-processed and the “adverse health outcomes” they’re linked to. In response, the FSANZ said the issue of UPFs is beyond the scope of the application.
Courtesy: Vow Food
“The nutrition risk assessment considered the macronutrient and micronutrient content of harvested cells including components introduced during the production process and found no nutritional concerns,” it concluded, adding that the harvested cells were unlikely to pose a food allergenicity risk.
FSANZ confirmed that Vow did not request that its cultured quail be sold as a single ingredient in retail. Instead, it will be mixed with other ingredients – as is the norm for cultivated meat, including Vow’s – to produce dishes in restaurants and foodservice establishments.
Addressing concerns about the high costs of cultivated meat and its impact on farmers, the FSANZ suggested that “certain industry costs and regulator costs are necessary to ensure safety and are unlikely to outweigh overall benefits to industry, consumers and government”.
The assessment’s outlook on the potential for cultivated meat is encouraging for the industry at large: “The consideration of costs and benefits acknowledges that cell-cultured foods are in their infancy with uncertain market growth. That takes into consideration the currently high production costs and uncertainty of the future speed or extent of technology developments for reducing production costs.”
A huge win for cultivated meat amid global challenges
This is a big win for Vow and the cultivated meat sector as a whole, which has been embattled of late due to funding and geopolitical challenges. Private investment in cultivated meat startups fell by 75% in 2023 and another 40% in 2024.
Cultivated meat has faced numerous cultural and political challenges of late. Italy prohibited the production and sale of cultivated meat in 2023. In the US, over 20 states have attempted to ban these proteins, and three have been successful. With Donald Trump as president and Robert F Kennedy Jr as health secretary, regulatory progress for cultivated meat looks uncertain – although the US did issue its third initial approval, for cultivated pork fat by San Francisco-based Mission Barns, last month.
Still, the future of the sector remains murky in the US, and that has opened up opportunities for other countries to emerge as leaders. Singapore is already at the forefront, having been the first to approve cultivated meat back in 2020, and following it up with its green light for Vow last year.
Courtesy: Vow
Other leaders could include Israel, which approved its homegrown cultivated beef maker Aleph Farms, and the UK, which has just opened a regulatory sandbox for a select group of cultivated startups. Experts believe South Korea could grant an approval this year as well, while regulators in the EU, Switzerland, and Thailand are evaluating applications. With the Vow approval, Australia and New Zealand are well-positioned to be key players in the field.
The FSANZ approval comes weeks after Vow cut back 30% of its workforce, a decision Peppou described as coming from a “position of strength as the industry leader, not a position of weakness”.
“However, given the complexity and novelty of the regulatory process for cultured meat, it has taken far longer than initially expected to secure regulatory approval in the markets which Vow has targeted,” he said at the time. “This is not a criticism of the regulators, but rather an acknowledgement of the care and thoroughness necessary to ensure cultured meat is completely safe for human consumption and regulated appropriately.
The company, which also makes cultured foie gras, is currently selling its products at various restaurants and bakeries in Singapore through its Forged brand, with rave reviews from tasters. One of them told Green Queen: “What stood out to me was that it was genuinely delicious.”
And just last week, the company claimed to have broken a world record by harvesting 20,000 litres of cell culture through its Andromeda bioreactor.
Vow – which went viral and appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert for its woolly mammoth meatball stunt in 2023 – has secured $55M from investors to date, commercialising with a smaller outlay than competitors that have received approval, including Upside Foods ($608M), Eat Just ($270M), Aleph Farms ($147M), and Mission Barns ($60M).
This is a developing story. Green Queen has contacted Vow for a comment on this story.
It is home to just over 2000 people, sitting between New Zealand and Australia in the South Pacific
The islands’ Chamber of Commerce said the decision by the US “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation” and Norfolk Island not being part of Australia.
“The classification of Norfolk Island as distinct from Australia in this tariff decision reinforces what the Norfolk Island community has long asserted: Norfolk Island is not an extension of Australia.”
Norfolk Island previously had a significant level of autonomy from Australia, but was absorbed directly into the country’s local government system in 2015.
Norfolk Islanders angered
The move angered many Norfolk Island people and inspired a number of campaigns, including appeals to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, by groups wishing to re-establish a measure of their autonomy, or to sue for independence.
The Chamber of Commerce has taken the tariff as a chance to reemphasis the islands’ call for independence, including, “restoration of economic rights” and exclusive access to its exclusive economic zone.
The statement said Norfolk Island is a “sovereign nation [and] must have the ability to engage directly with international trade partners rather than through Australian officials who do not represent Norfolk Island’s interests”.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters yesterday: “Norfolk Island has got a 29 percent tariff. I’m not quite sure that Norfolk Island, with respect to it, is a trade competitor with the giant economy of the United States.”
“But that just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on Earth is safe from this.”
The base tariff of 10 percent is also included for Tokelau, a non-self-governing territory of New Zealand, with a population of only about 1500 people living on the atoll islands.
US President Donald Trump’s global tariffs . . . “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation.” Image: Getty/The Conversation
US ‘don’t really understand’, says PANG Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) deputy coordinator Adam Wolfenden said he did not understand why Norfolk Island and Tokelau were added to the tariff list.
“I think this reflects the approach that’s been taken, which seems very rushed and very divorced from a common sense approach,” Wolfenden said.
“The inclusion of these territories, to me, is indicative that they don’t really understand what they’re doing.”
Boeing Defence Australia and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took the opportunity at the 2025 edition of Avalon Airshow in Melbourne in late March to announce a major milestone in the MQ-28A Ghost Bat Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) flight test programme. According to Boeing, the programme has completed the 100th flight and a Ghost […]
Australia’s government and services have continued to endanger a severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) patient trapped in an abusive household. There, her abusers have now repeatedly infected her with Covid – while gaslighting her and withholding care, creating the perfect storm for her health to deteriorate further.
The Canaryfirst highlighted Anna’s appalling story in May 2024. However, since then, things have only gotten worse. Anna’s situation was already dire, but now, it has become inordinately more urgent that she finds a safe home away from her abusers. This is because every day that goes by that she remains trapped under the same roof, they continue to put her life at greater risk.
Severe ME: more than 20 years of a devastating disease
Anna is based in Melbourne and has lived with ME for over 20 years.
Crucially, post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark symptom of ME, which entails a disproportionate worsening of many of these symptoms after even minimal physical or mental activities.
Like many living with ME, Anna also deals with a number of other serious chronic illnesses. These include endometriosis, hypothyroidism, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and adrenal disease, among others. And for Anna, long Covid has also compounded her condition.
Contracting Covid-19 in May 2020 and then again in 2022 caused a relapse in her ME/CFS, essentially worsening her condition. In March 2024, family members once again exposed her to the virus. Consequently, Anna currently lives at the severe end of the disease’s scale.
At least 25% of people live with severe ME. In these cases, people living severe ME are mostly, if not entirely permanently bed-bound or hospitalised. On top of this, they are often unable to digest food, communicate, or process information and are fully dependent on others for their care.
Still trapped in domestic abuse eleven months on
All the while Anna has been enormously sick and disabled with severe ME, she has also been trapped in a household where family members abuse and neglect her.
Anna told the Canary that her domestic abuser regularly neglects her nutritional needs – sometimes leaving her for days without food.
On top of this, during the height of Australia’s blistering summer heat between December and February, Anna’s abuser refused her air conditioning. Like many living with ME/CFS, Anna experiences autonomic dysfunction – known as dysautonomia – which can affect blood pressure, heart rate, digestion, and body temperature. So, as Melbourne’s temperatures soared, Anna was left to suffer the impacts this had on her already horrendous health.
Then, at the end of March, another abusive family member forced a visit on Anna. The family member’s stay ramped up the over-stimulating environment, triggering Anna’s PEM.
This was when a family member caused Anna to contract Covid in March 2024. And predictably, her family’s abuse has only continued. In November, Anna told the Canary that her family had once again exposed her to a Covid infection. At the same time, the abusive family member that previously visited and gave her Covid – her sister – moved in next door.
Anna reached out to the Canary over Christmas. Her family was once again putting her health at risk. In particular, while they were all sick, they were refusing to mask to mitigate the risk of her getting infected. She shared a letter with us from her GP with a list of precautions care-givers and healthcare staff would need to implement to keep her safe. This advised that:
Ongoing measures should be taken to protect [Anna] from future serious infections including Covid-19 including
People wearing N95 masks when in the same room as [Anna] (including when asymptomatic) to minimise passing on any respiratory infections
People who are in regular contact with [Anna] are encouraged to wear N95 masks when in public, to minimise risk of bringing community-based infections into the house
It is recommended that all household members regularly use RATs to monitor for Covid-19 and influenza infections to identify early and asymptomatic infections
And despite the letter detailing her specific dietary and environmental needs to keep her severe ME as stable as possible, her family have continued to ignore all this.
Things only getting worse
Anna told the Canary in March that her family have only continued ramping up the abuse and neglect. She explained that:
There are mould problems, dust problems, father remodel shower without thought for me
Crucially, he’d paid no attention to her needs as person living with severe ME, POTS, and MCAS:
I have been debited shower chair to sit that I offered to pay for he won’t allow on top of hand held shower hose and filter for MCAS and dust filter for central heating he refuses to have cleaned.
Her council wanted to fix the shower because the set-up is dangerous for her, having hit her head on the side of the bath multiple times. However, her father had also refused to facilitate this. To make matters worse, he has been withholding her shower chair she needs to shower safely due to PEM and POTS. Anna expressed how this compounding abuse is mounting up to put her life in real danger:
My doctor says if they keep doing all this they will kill me.
All the while, Anna’s sister has also been exacting coercive control over her health affairs.
In the past month, her sister has been trying to access confidential details about Anna’s ongoing court case to access Australia’s main disability welfare programme, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Anna explained that:
She [had] the gall to call my Dr and I don’t know who else so I’m having to go to the trouble of contacting everyone to make sure there’s no leaks and having my case made anonymous and under an unsearchable pseudonym
Domestic abuse services failing disabled people like Anna
In January, Anna posted more about the circumstances she is persistently facing in an abusive household:
Yesterday half hour crawling on the floor bc I couldn’t stand being screamed at by sister (moved next door) & called every name under the sun telling me she’s going to run things. Dad backed her up. Called me shameful. Said I should leave. Nowhere to go. Is not safe. Help me
However, the problem is, Anna still has no way out. As the Canary detailed before, there are no options available to Anna through the usual domestic violence refuge channels. We wrote how:
When Anna has sought help at Australia’s domestic abuse shelters, she has found they have no provision available for disabled survivors of violence. This is because women’s refuge services are generally under-equipped to address the care needs of disabled people. On top of this, services do not typically design them with accessibility in mind.
In short, domestic violence services can’t – and won’t – help Anna because she is disabled. We previously noted how the lack of services was driving Anna to call for help from anyone in Melbourne who could spare her a room and some care. Specifically, we said that:
Given decades of the Australian state and services failing people living with ME/CFS, change isn’t going to come from within. For that reason, Anna mused to the Canary how she hoped someone would take her in.
However, it’s a damning indictment when one of the wealthiest countries on the planet places a chronically ill woman at the mercy of medically unqualified, albeit well-meaning strangers for care – and without assurance for her safety.
Now though, it is literally coming to this since the Victorian state and Melbourne-based domestic abuse services are still shamefully failing her:
Need quiet room in (house?) to live Melbourne. Covid/infection conscious so masking please (letter from Dr).
Need some care but can provide meals & some care hours, Can pay some rent &
If works out longer term they could get Carer Allowance &/or Payment.https://t.co/DKnASpOGwY
Similarly, Anna has explained to the Canary previously that living in a poor suburb of Melbourne has left her without options for in-person disability advocacy services as well. She told us how:
I’ve tried them all. Problem is they either don’t work in my catchment or only with NDIS support.
So, the lack of disability advocacy services in her area has left Anna to fight for herself, despite being extremely sick with severe ME.
Moreover, as she noted, many of the disability advocacy services she has contacted will only support those accessing Australia’s disability welfare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, here’s the thing: the government overwhelmingly rejects applications from people living with ME. As the Canaryhighlighted before:
as of 30 June 2023, the rejection rate for people living with ME/CFS stood at 64% of those who have applied
What’s more, we calculated that on the basis of even low-end conservative estimates for the number of people living with severe ME in Australia:
just 0.3% of the people living with severe ME/CFS are currently accessing the NDIS.
Unsurprisingly then, Anna hasn’t been able to get NDIS either. She explained to the Canary that after the government National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) initially rejected her application, she had to appeal this in court:
I’d be resting as needed if didn’t have search for housing and NDIS application messed up so gone to court I’m back working on NDIS mid January because have no disability advocate but have charity legal representation. I don’t know if I can do it with no help.
Anna summed up that a huge barrier is the huge amounts of documented health records and evidence the NDIA requires. For Anna, not only is the process of gathering this putting an immense strain on her health, but there are other issues even obtaining the evidence she needs. She expressed that:
Well my father threw out the records I was keeping at home and most of my records disappeared when my deceased doctor clinic shut down. He wrote a summary of ever consult. That would be proof. So I have to do more work to dig up info and may still be rejected after 18 months of work.
And to make matters worse, to get the NDIS, Anna explained how they require applicants to provide:
proof you tried available treatments and they didn’t work… even if there is no treatment.
Notably, the NDIA has built engaging with outdated and harmful treatments like Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) into its criteria. Of course, this is hugely problematic – not least because these could cause Anna’s severe ME to worsen even further. Medical professionals have forced Anna into both since she developed ME. It’s highly likely they contributed to her deterioration into severe ME:
I will be rejected for sure without this.
It’s al just pointless busy work pointing out what doesn’t work (nothing) when I really need to show there is no treatment (especially CBT/GET) which I tried years ago & of course it didn’t work. Being so young is only reason I survived
Glacial pace of change putting Anna’s life at risk – but people can help
Close to a year after the Canary first reported on Anna’s atrocious situation, little has changed.
As ever, the only people who’ve reached out to help Anna are chronically ill people, often themselves living with ME, or long Covid. Notably, people online have been sharing her story and setting out Anna’s urgent needs. These are:
A room in a quiet home with Covid conscious masking. Anna has explained that she can pay rent, but she will need some care assistance. She has already qualified for funding support for this, so can provide for meals and some care hours. There’s a prospect of Carer’s Allowance if the person can assist her long-term.
Once she has secured a room in a safe home, she will need a way to move safely, with consideration for her severe ME and mitigating infection risk in the process.
She’ll also need funding for moving costs, and aids until she has access to the NDIS.
Alongside all this, she needs a disability advocate with experience of complex cases who can assist her in tandem.
Separately, she is looking for someone in Australia, preferably in Victoria, to help do verbal communication tasks. Anna has everything they would require documented, so just needs someone to sit on the phone.
It’s shameful that a person living with severe ME in a wealthy and enormously-resourced country can count on neither the state or specialist services to help her get care, and leave an abusive household. Change for people living with ME continues to move at a glacial pace – but people like Anna can’t wait for it – because by now, it’s already too little, too late.
In the meantime, if you want to support Anna financially as she prepares to build a life away from abuse and are in a position to do so, her international crowd-funder can be found here. If you live in Australia you can send support to @halcionandon through Beem. Anna would be especially grateful for gift-cards through Amazon (to halcionandon@gmail.com) or Beem, to afford basics.
Australian Plant Proteins, which went into insolvency last year, has been acquired by investment firm My Co and will resume operations next month.
My Co, the investment vehicle of the Paule Family Office, has taken over Melbourne-based manufacturer Australian Plant Proteins (APP), 10 months after it went into voluntary administration.
The move is said to support local farmers, protect jobs, and reinforce Australia’s status as a plant-based leader, with APP co-founder Phil McFarlane continuing as CEO. Fellow founder Brendan McKeegan has exited the company, according to information on LinkedIn.
“APP is a natural fit into our investment portfolio and complementary to our Biocheese and Meliora plant-based businesses,” My Co CEO Vicky Pappas told Green Queen.
She added: “APP will be fully operating in May 2025, and we will take the opportunity to first assess all areas of the business before embarking on further investment for exponential growth.”
Why Australian Plant Proteins went insolvent
Courtesy: Australian Plant Proteins
APP, which was founded in 2020, was the first firm to develop plant protein isolates in Australia. It entered insolvency in June, with industry experts blaming a lack of government support rather than a company failure.
At the time, Simon Eassom, CEO of alternative protein think tank Food Frontier, called it “a warning that building a long-term sustainable industry takes time, ongoing investment, and commitment from government”.
APP’s insolvency, he said, resigned Australian manufacturers to “relying on the importation of soybean concentrates and protein ingredients, often of variable quality and suitability” and put the country at risk of deepening its reliance on imports instead of becoming a leading exporter of innovative foods.
“We hope that APP finds a buyer before it’s too late but, really, the support needs to come from government,” Eassom said in July.
My Co, which focuses on agrifood and biotech startups at seed and Series A stages, has now swooped in to do just that. Pappas said APP’s insolvency was caused by “a variety of contributing factors exacerbated by tough economic conditions”.
“The fundamentals of the business are sound with an exceptional, high-quality product,” she told Green Queen. “My Co has a long track record of successfully working with businesses like APP with a hands-on approach.”
In a statement in the announcement, she added: “The potential of APP is immense. Its game-changing technology aligns with our vision of fostering innovation in the food sector and contributes to a sustainable future. We are excited about expanding APP’s capabilities and enhancing its presence in both domestic and international markets.”
New products and capacity expansion planned
Courtesy: Australian Plant Proteins
Operating the largest plant protein fractionation facility in Australia, APP manufactures protein isolates from locally grown faba beans, yellow peas, lentils, mung beans and other pulses.
It uses a proprietary membrane extraction technology to create the ingredients, which boast more than 85% protein content. The isolates offer superior functional properties, including enhanced fortification, solubility, and texture, plus a neutral flavour, and can be used in numerous plant-based applications like dairy, bakery, nutrition, beverage, and meat alternatives.
MacFarlane suggested that APP’s unique extraction process “differentiates it from other plant protein manufacturers” globally. “Unlike conventional methods that often rely on harsh chemicals or enzymes, APP extracts protein from pulses using a clean, non-solvent method,” he said.
The process allows APP to manufacture plant protein isolates at scale and help food and beverage companies tailor their plant-based alternatives, meeting consumer demand and bridging the sensory gap with animal proteins. Its plant protein isolate powder even won the Best Ingredient honour at the 2024 Hive Awards.
For My Co, integrating APP into its existing portfolio will enhance the latter’s operational efficiencies and marketing strategies, allowing it to double down on developing new products for evolving consumer needs.
APP already has plans to kickstart several projects – including establishing a fibre and starch processing facility – which will increase its production capacity and diversify its product offerings.
“This is more than just an acquisition; it’s about creating a sustainable future for food production,” said Pappas. “By acquiring APP, we are shaping the future of plant-based innovation in Australia and beyond.”
A topsy-turvy plant-based sector down under
Courtesy: Food Frontier
APP’s insolvency last year came amid several stories of alternative protein startups – both locally and overseas – ceasing operations, or coming close to it.
Last year, New South Wales-based ProForm Foods – the company behind the Meet range of plant-based analogues – wound down after entering voluntary administration, and vegan burger chain Flave shut its doors too. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s Sunfed Meats ceased operations after nearly a decade in operation.
The Aussie Plant Based Co also went into liquidation in October, before being swiftly acquired by Queensland’s Smart Foods eight days later.
All this came amid a backdrop of a 59% hike in wholesale demand for plant-based meat in foodservice in 2023, and a 1% drop in annual retail sales between 2020 and 2023. Research by Food Frontier shows meat analogues are yet to reach 65% of Australia’s population. And of those who have tried them, only 22% say they’d buy them again, signalling a gap in consumer liking, and an uphill battle for brands in the space.
However, with two in five Australians identifying either reducing or not consuming meat at all in 2024 (with 22% identifying as ‘meat reducers’), the opportunity is ripe for plant-based companies to attract this market. Can My Co help APP do so?
Making its first foray outside the USA was the Fury collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) from Anduril. It took pride of place on Anduril’s stand at the Avalon International Airshow 2025, held near Melbourne from 25-30 March. The Fury, which has received the US military nomenclature of YFQ-44A, is one of two platforms selected last year […]
@chrishehim.bsky.social 
(@ChrisHeHim1) 
.
