Michael Leunig — who died in the early hours of Thursday December 19, surrounded by “his children, loved ones, and sunflowers” — was the closest thing Australian cartooning had to a prophet. By turns over his long career, he was a poet, a prophet and a provocateur.
The challenge comes in attempting to understand Leunig’s significance: for Australian cartooning; for readers of The Age and other newspapers past; and for the nation’s idea of itself.
On this day, do you remember the gently philosophical Leunig, or the savagely satirical one? Do you remember a cartoon that you thought absolutely nailed the problems of the world, or one you thought was terribly wrong-headed?
Leunig’s greatness lay in how intensely he made his audiences think and feel.
There is no one straightforward story to tell here. With six decades of cartooning at least weekly in newspapers and 25 book-length collections of his work, how could there be?
The light and the dark One thread is an abiding fondness for the whimsical Leunig. Mr Curly and Vasco Pyjama live on in the imaginations of so many readers.
Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, Leunig’s work seemed to hold a moral and ethical mirror up to Australian society — sometimes gently, but not without controversy, such as his 1995 “Thoughts of a baby lying in a childcare centre”.
Feed the Inner Duck. Image: Michael Leunig, CC BY-NC-ND
Another thread is the dark satirist.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he broke onto the scene as a wild man in Oz, the Sunday Observer and the Nation Review who deplored Vietnam and only escaped the draft owing to deafness in one ear.
Then he apparently mellowed to become the guru of The Age, still with a capacity to launch the occasional satirical thunderbolt. Decidedly countercultural, together with Patrick Cook and Peter Nicholson, Leunig brought what historian Tony Moore has called “existential and non-materialist themes to the Australian black-and-white tradition”.
By 1999, he was declared a “national living treasure” by the National Trust, and was being lauded by universities for his unique contributions to the national culture.
But to tell the story of Leunig’s significance from the mid 90s on is to go beyond the dreamer and the duck. In later decades you could see a clear distinction between some cartoons that continued to console in a bewildering world, and others that sparked controversy.
Politics and controversy Leunig saw 9/11 and the ensuing “War on Terror” as the great turning point in his career. He fearlessly returned to the themes of the Vietnam years, only to receive caution, rebuke and rejection from editors and readers.
He stopped drawing Mr Curly and Vasco Pyjama. The world was no longer safe for the likes of them.
Then there was a cartoon refused by The Age in 2002, deemed by editor Michael Gawenda to be inappropriate: in the first frame, a Jew is confronted by the gates of the death camp: “Work Brings Freedom [Arbeit Macht Frei]”; in the second frame an Israeli viewing a similar slogan “War Brings Peace”.
Rejected, it was never meant to see the light of day, but ABC’s Media Watch and Crikey outed it because of the constraint its spiking represented to fair media comment on the Middle East.
That the cartoon was later entered, without Leunig’s knowledge, in the infamous Iranian “Holocaust Cartoon” competition of 2006, has only added to its infamy and presaged the internet’s era of the uncontrollable circulation of images.
A decade later, from 2012, he reworked Martin Niemöller’s poetic statement of guilt over the Holocaust. The result was outrage, but also acute division within the Australian Jewish community.
First They Came. Image: Michael Leunig, CC BY-NC-ND
Dvir Abramovich (chairperson of the Anti-Defamation Commission) made a distinction between something challenging, and something racist, believing it was the latter.
Harold Zwier (of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society) welcomed the chance for his community to think critically about Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.
Mummy was Busy. Image: Michael Leunig, CC BY-NC-ND
Then from 2021 — a covid-19 vaccination needle atop an armoured tank, rolling towards a helpless citizen.
Leunig’s enforced retirement (it is still debated whether he walked or was pushed) was long and drawn-out. He filed his last cartoon for The Agethis August. By then, he had alienated more than a few of his colleagues in the press and the cartooning profession.
Support of the downtrodden Do we speak ill of the dead? We hope not. Instead, we hope we are paying respect to a great and often angry artist who wanted always to challenge the consumer society with its dark cultural and geopolitical secrets.
Leunig’s response was a single line of argument: he was “Just a cartoonist with a moral duty to speak”.
You don’t have to agree with every provocation, but his purpose is always to take up the cause of the weak, and deploy all the weaponry at his disposal to support the downtrodden in their fight.
“The role of the cartoonist is not to be balanced”, said Leunig, but rather to “give balance”.
For Leunig, the weak were the Palestinian civilians, the babies of the post-iPhone generation, and those forced to be vaccinated by a powerful state; just as they were the Vietnamese civilians, the children forced to serve their rulers through state-sanctioned violence, the citizens whose democracy was undercut by stooges of the establishment.
That deserves to be his legacy, regardless of whether you agree or not about his stance.
The coming year will give a great many people pause to reflect on the life and work of Leunig. Indeed, he has provided us with a monthly schedule for doing just that: Leunig may be gone, but 2025 is already provided for, via his last calendar.
The union for Australian journalists has welcomed the delivery by the federal government of more than $150 million to support the sustainability of public interest journalism over the next four years.
Combined with the announcement of the revamped News Bargaining Initiative, this could result in up to $400 million in additional funding for the sector over the coming years.
The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance says the new funding under the News Media Assistance Program (News MAP) will boost journalism and media diversity but must be tied to the enforcement of minimum employment standards for all media workers, including freelancers, says the MEAA website.
The acting director of MEAA media, Michelle Rae, said the Albanese government had picked up on recommendations from the union during consultation over the News MAP earlier this year.
“We are pleased that the government has adopted a holistic and structured approach to support for the news media industry, rather than the patchwork of band aid solutions that have been implemented in the past,” she said.
“MEAA has long argued that commercially produced public interest journalism requires systematic, long-term support beyond a three-year time frame to ensure its viability and to promote a diverse media landscape.
“The longer-term approach confirmed by the government will allow media outlets to plan for their future sustainability with additional certainty about their income over the next four years.”
Importantly, the new funding was primarily directed at local and community news, the sector that had been most impacted by the decline of advertising revenue over the past two decades.
“The $116.7 million to support this sector will go a long way towards helping communities in regional Australia and the suburbs of our main cities to rebuild local journalism in areas that have become or are in danger of becoming news deserts,” Rae said.
“The unique role of Australian Associated Press as an independent and accessible news service has been recognised with $33 million in new funding.
“MEAA also welcomes the government’s commitment to mandate at least $6 million of its advertising budget is spent in regional newspapers.”
Rae said that while it was worthwhile to explore measures to attract philanthropic funding of the news media industry, any solutions to the decline of public interest journalism must not be reliant on sponsorships or donations that undermine the independence of media outlets.
“There is a place for demand-side incentives to subscribe and pay for quality news media through the use of subsidies, vouchers or tax deductibility,” she said.
“But care must be taken to ensure that philanthropic funding does not allow donors to dictate the editorial policies of media outlets.”
Palestinian history is “deliberately ignored” and is being effectively “erased” as part of Western news media narratives, while establishment forces work to shut down anyone speaking out against Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, academics have told a university conference of legal and Middle East experts.
Also, the murder of Palestinians and resistance by them had been routinely mischaracterised as “loss and failure” on their part as though it was their own fault.
Although the conference took place over one and-a-half days in July and brought together Arab, Muslim, Jewish and Indigenous speakers from Palestine, Australia, Germany, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom, details have only just been released.
The release of the conference proceedings comes more than one year on from the start of the Israeli War on Gaza, now extended into Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and an Amnesty International investigation concluding Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The western media has ranged from selective reporting of facts… and publishing outright lies that justify the murder of Palestinians.
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) at least 45,097 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including over 17,492 children, with more than 107,244 people injured and in excess of 10,000 people missing under the rubble of collapsed buildings.
By comparison 63 journalists were killed in 20 years of the Vietnam War.
Posed war crime questions
The conference posed major questions regarding the erasing of Palestinian history, how it enables present-day war crimes and how defiance has resonated and inspired ongoing resistance by:
Palestinians fighting to defend their lives and their land, or as seen around the world, in civic protests;
the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement;
human rights advocacy;
alternative social media production; and
legal challenges in the highest of our international institutions, the ICC and the International Court of Justice.
The conference was officially opened with the Welcome to Country, from Uncle Greg Simms, Gadigal elder of the Dharug Nation.
Uncle Greg spoke about the importance of land and country to the survival of Australia’s Indigenous people, the role of ancestral ties and connections, the importance of history and allies in the face of genocide, and the need to empathise with the people of Palestine at this time.
Dr Janine Hourani’s address. Video: UTS
Janine Hourani from the University of Exeter and Palestinian Youth Movement, in her keynote speech detailed the history of Palestinian resistance to Zionist occupation, addressing how the recording of history, privileged by a select few, served to stifle narratives, as well as erase key figures and moments in time, “reproducing a particular version of Palestinian history that focuses on defeat and loss, rather than resistance and rebellion”.
“The Western media has ranged from selective reporting of facts, reporting Palestinians as ‘died’ and Israeli settlers as ‘murdered’ and publishing outright lies that justify the murder of Palestinians,” said Hourani.
“Since October we’ve heard multiple political interventions being made about the Western media’s complicity in the current genocide in Palestine.”
Souheir Edalbi, a law lecturer at Western Sydney University, convened the session that followed, featuring four speakers.
Anti-Palestinian racism
Randa Abdelfattah, an author, lawyer and academic, addressed anti-Palestinian racism which serves to disarm criticism of Israel and Zionism.
Udi Raz, an academic and activist based in Germany, presented a case study of Mizrahi or Arab Jews in Germany, interrogating the definition of semitism and otherness in that context, the culturally pervasive racism towards Arabs, and German anxieties about what constitutes a non-European identity.
Annie Pfingst, an author and academic, listed 11 different types of “erasure” by Israel, from the confiscation, possession and renaming of Palestinian villages through to the holding of Palestinian bodies killed by the Israeli forces, not returned to their families, or buried in the “cemetery of numbers”.
She described a “necrological regime” that turns dead bodies into prisoners of the state, penalising and torturing the community, serving “to further evict the native in line with the structure of the settler colonial imperative of elimination”.
We have seen many instances of pro-Palestinian voices who have been sacked from their work places.
Jessica Holland, a researcher, curator and archivist, discussed how the history of archiving of Palestinian material is “deeply embedded within a legacy of coloniality”, and the importance of Palestinian social history and archiving projects, in redressing and countering hegemonic understandings and organisation of materials.
“Journalists, teachers, doctors, health care workers, public servants, lawyers, artists, food hospitality workers. Across every profession and industry [showing] solidarity with Palestine has been met with a repertoire of repressive tactics, disciplinary employment processes, cancelled contracts, lawfare, police brutality, parliamentary scrutiny, coordinated complaints and harassment campaigns, media coverage, doxxing, harassment, attempts at law reform and policy amendments,” said Abdelfattah.
“We have seen in the past few days the treatment of [Senator] Fatima Payman and the intimidation, bullying and silencing she has endured.
“We have also seen many instances of pro-Palestinian voices who have been sacked from their work places.”
On day two of the conference Aunty Glendra Stubbs gave the Acknowledgement of Country, which was followed by the keynote speaker Jeff Halper, anthropologist, author, lecturer, political activist and director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
Normalising violence
Halper addressed how Israel as a Zionist settler colonial state normalises violence, erasure and apartheid against Palestinians, where physical and cultural genocide are built in, necessitating indigenous resistance.
A second panel, “Social Movements, in Defiance”, convened by Alison Harwood, a social change practitioner, included speakers Nasser Mashni from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), Sarah Schwartz from the Jewish Council of Australia, and Latoya Rule from UTS Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research.
Speakers shared insights on how social movements mobilise from within their diverse communities, to reach and potentially impact the Australian and international social and political stage.
Interdisciplinary storyteller and media producer Daz Chandler presented a series of pre-recorded interviews and a live discussion with participants involved in University campus encampments from around the world including activists from Birzeit University in the Occupied West Bank, Mexico, Trinity College in Dublin, UCLA, the University of Melbourne, University of Tokyo, University of Sydney and Monash University.
Two further sessions focused on responses “From the Field”, with a third panel convened by Paula Abboud, a cultural worker, educator, writer and creative producer, featuring The Age journalist Maher Moghrabi, author and human rights lawyer Sara Saleh, Lena Mozayani from NSW Teachers for Palestine, and Dr Sana Pathan from ANZ Doctors for Palestine.
Each reflected on their work and the challenges they encountered in their respective professional fields. Obstructions they faced ranged from hindering and silencing the expression of ideas, through to the prevention of carrying out critical on-the-ground work to save lives.
Hometown of Nablus
The final panel of the conference was moderated by Derek Halawa, a Palestinian living in the diaspora, who shared his experience of travelling to his hometown of Nablus.
He followed virtual footsteps from his cousin’s video, through the alley ways, to reach the home of his great grandfather, a journey which culminated in reaching the steps of Al Aqsa Mosque, with both spaces symbolising belonging and hope.
Cathy Peters, media worker and co-founder of BDS Australia described a diverse range of disruption movements calling for the end of ties with Israeli companies, since the war on Gaza.
This was followed by RIta Jabri Markwell, solicitor and adviser to the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, addressing specific points of Australian law dealing with terrorism, freedom of speech, and racial discrimination.
The conference, which was was co-convened by Barbara Bloch, Wafa Chafic, James Goodman, Derek Halawa and Christina Ho, concluded with UTS Sociology Professor James Goodman giving an overview of the proceedings and potential actions post-conference.
One post-conference outcome is an additional series of interviews produced by Daz Chandler exploring the power of creative practices utilised within the Palestinian resistance movement.
It features renowned Palestinian contemporary artist Khaled Hourani, Ben Rivers: co-founder of the Palestinian Freedom Bus, Yazan al-Saadi: co-founder of Cartoonists for Palestine, Taouba Yacoubi: Sew 4 Palestine, Birkbeck University of London; and artist and activist from Naarm Melbourne, Margaret Mayhew.
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has successfully launched a Tomahawk cruise missile during a test and evaluation exercise conducted off the west coast of the United States, the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 10 December. The Tomahawk missile was launched from Hobart-class air warfare destroyer HMAS Brisbane, making Australia only the third country […]
The A$140 million aid agreement between Australia and Nauru signed last week is a prime example of the geopolitical tightrope vulnerable Pacific nations are walking in the 21st century.
The deal provides Nauru with direct budgetary support, stable banking services, and policing and security resources. In return, Australia will have the right to veto any pact Nauru might make with other countries — namely China.
The veto terms are similar to the “Falepili Union” between Australia and Tuvalu signed late last year, which granted Tuvaluans access to Australian residency and climate mitigation support, in exchange for security guarantees.
In exchange for investment in military infrastructure development, training and equipment, the US gains unrestricted access to six ports and airports.
Also last week, PNG signed a 10-year, A$600 million deal to fund its own team in Australia’s NRL competition. In return, “PNG will not sign a security deal that could allow Chinese police or military forces to be based in the Pacific nation”.
These arrangements are all emblematic of the geopolitical tussle playing out in the Pacific between China and the US and its allies.
This strategic competition is often framed in mainstream media and political commentary as an extension of “the great game” played by rival powers. From a traditional security perspective, Pacific nations can be depicted as seeking advantage to leverage their own development priorities.
But this assumption that Pacific governments are “diplomatic price setters”, able to play China and the US off against each other, overlooks the very real power imbalances involved.
The risk, as the authors of one recent study argued, is that the “China threat” narrative becomes the justification for “greater Western militarisation and economic dominance”. In other words, Pacific nations become diplomatic price takers.
Defence diplomacy Pacific nations are vulnerable on several fronts: most have a low economic base and many are facing a debt crisis. At the same time, they are on the front line of climate change and rising sea levels.
The costs of recovering from more frequent extreme weather events create a vicious cycle of more debt and greater vulnerability. As was reported at this year’s United Nations COP29 summit, climate financing in the Pacific is mostly in the form of concessional loans.
At the country level, government systems often lack the capacity to manage increasing aid packages, and struggle with the diplomatic engagement and other obligations demanded by the new geopolitical conditions.
In August, Kiribati even closed its borders to diplomats until 2025 to allow the new government “breathing space” to attend to domestic affairs.
In the past, Australia championed governance and institutional support as part of its financial aid. But a lot of development assistance is now skewed towards policing and defence.
Kiribati: threatened by sea level rise, the nation closed its borders to foreign diplomats until 2025. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation
Lack of good faith At the same time, many political parties in Pacific nations operate quite informally and lack comprehensive policy manifestos. Most governments lack a parliamentary subcommittee that scrutinises foreign policy.
The upshot is that foreign policy and security arrangements can be driven by personalities rather than policy priorities, with little scrutiny. Pacific nations are also susceptible to corruption, as highlighted in Transparency International’s 2024 Annual Corruption Report.
Since 2019, my country has become a hotbed for diplomatic tensions and foreign interference, and undue influence.
Similarly, Pacific affairs expert Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva has argued the Australia–Tuvalu agreement was one-sided and showed a “lack of good faith”.
Behind these developments, of course, lies the evolving AUKUS security pact between Australia, the US and United Kingdom, a response to growing Chinese presence and influence in the “Indo-Pacific” region.
The response from Pacific nations has been diplomatic, perhaps from a sense they cannot “rock the submarine” too much, given their ties to the big powers involved. But former Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Meg Taylor has warned:
Pacific leaders were being sidelined in major geopolitical decisions affecting their region and they need to start raising their voices for the sake of their citizens.
Unless these partnerships are grounded in good faith and genuine sustainable development, the grassroots consequences of geopolitics-as-usual will not change.
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has conducted its first test firing of a Tomahawk land-attack sea-launched cruise missile, taking a major step towards introducing the weapons system into operational service. The RAN is set to become the third navy to operate Tomahawk, following the US Navy and UK Royal (RN). The test firing was conducted […]
The seven people hospitalised in Fiji with suspected severe alcohol poisoning are reported to be in a stable condition, says Tourism Fiji chief executive Brent Hill.
Seven people, including four Australian tourists and one American, and two other foreigners who live in Fiji, had been drinking cocktails at the 5-star Warwick Resort in the Coral Coast before they fell ill.
All have now been transferred to the larger Lautoka Hospital from Sigatoka Hospital because of the severity of their condition.
Hill told RNZ Pacific they were all now in a stable condition and there had been improvement in some symptoms.
“We don’t want to speculate on exactly the cause; we don’t know that yet,” he said.
“But what we do know is that it was limited to only seven tourists at one resort and only at one bar in that resort as well.
“Talking to the management they’re quite perplexed as to how it’s happened, and certainly there are no accusations around that something’s been put into their drink or been diluted or using a foreign substance.”
A local ‘had seizures’
A resort guest, who did not want to be named, told RNZ Pacific that his friend, a local, was having seizures on Saturday afternoon and was still too ill to get up.
The guest said he was certain the drinks had been tampered with.
“We have not received any proper communication from the Warwick team and just asked one of my friends to sign an indemnity form.”
He said that he and the group that he was with had all had one drink each at the adult pool bar.
“Everyone that I saw at the Sigatoka Hospital all drank the piña colada.
“The hospital and doctors were the saving grace . . . they were really overwhelmed, but tried their best to get everyone stable and moved out to Lautoka ICU overnight.”
Fiji’s Health Secretary Dr Jemesa Tudravu told local media two out of the seven affected individuals had been placed on life support over the weekend. However, they had since recovered and remained in critical condition.
Tudravu said all those affected were tourists, and no locals involved.
Affected locals ignored
But the resort guest who spoke to RNZ Pacific claims that Tudravu has completely ignored the fact that locals were also affected.
A Fiji police spokesperson said on Monday that a 26-year-old local woman been discharged from Sigatoka Hospital.
“Others have been transferred to Lautoka Aspen Hospital and we will wait for medical authorities to clear the victims first before we can interview them,” he said.
“But police investigation is already underway.”
Fiji’s Lautoka Hospital . . . all seven people – including four Australians – involved in the suspected alcohol poisoning case were transferred there. Image: Reinal Chand/Fiji Times
Hill said the tourism industry was very conscious of the recent tainted alcohol incident in Laos, where several people died, but said it’s “a long way from that”.
“The resort has certainly given us assurance that there’s no indication around substituting substances in beverages and so on. So it’s a little bit of a mystery that a nice resort would experience something like this.”
When asked if tourists needed to be careful ordering cocktails in Fiji, Hill said people needed to be careful anywhere around the world, including at home.
‘Unfortunate experience’
“The risk is very, very small, but at the same time, we don’t want to diminish for these seven people.
“It’s obviously been a really unfortunate experience and we certainly are trying to work out what’s caused that and our investigation is continuing.”
Brent said he had never heard of anything like this happening in Fiji before.
He hoped it would not affect Fiji’s reputation as a tourist destination.
“I do understand, of course, based on recent events in Southeast Asia that people want assurance that they can be safe, and certainly from our perspective it’s a really isolated case.”
A spokesperson for Warwick Fiji told RNZ Pacific that they had “nothing to disclose”.
RNZ Pacific was told the general manager of the high-end resort would not front for an interview because the suspected poisoning was still under investigation.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“Offshore operators are consolidating a significant market share of New Zealand betting — and the revenue which New Zealand’s racing industry relies on is certainly not guaranteed,” Peters told Parliament in support of the Bill.
But offshore tech companies have also been pulling the revenue rug out from under local news media companies for years, and there has been no such speedy response to that.
Digital platforms offer cheap and easy access to unlimited overseas content — and tech companies’ dominance of the digital advertising systems and the resulting revenue is intensifying.
Profits from online ads shown to New Zealanders go offshore — and very little tax is paid on the money made here by the likes of Google and Facebook.
“As the government we must ensure regulatory settings are enabling the best chance of success,” he said in a statement.
The media have been crying out for this low-hanging fruit for years — but the estimated $6 million boost is a drop in the bucket for broadcasters, and little help for other media.
The big bucks are in tech platforms paying for the local news they carry.
Squeezing the tech titans In Australia, the government did it three years ago with a bargaining code that is funnelling significant sums to news media there. It also signalled the willingness of successive governments to confront the market dominance of ‘big tech’.
When Goldsmith took over here in May he said the media industry’s problems were both urgent and acute – likewise the need to “level the playing field”.
The government then picked up the former government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, modelled on Australia’s move.
But it languishes low down on Parliament’s order paper, following threats from Google to cut news out of its platforms in New Zealand – or even cut and run from New Zealand altogether.
(The News Bargaining Incentive announced on Thursday could allow the Australian government to tax big digital platforms if they do not pay local news publishers there)
Meanwhile, news media cuts and closures here roll on.
The lid keeps sinking in 2024
The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive . . . “The members’ bucket is pretty solid. The commercial bucket was going quite well, and then we just ran into a brick wall.” Image: RNZ Mediawatch
“I’ve worked in the industry for 30 years and never seen a year like it,” RNZ’s Guyon Espiner wrote in The Listener this week, admitting to “a sense of survivor’s guilt”.
Just this month, 14 NZME local papers will close and more TVNZ news employees will be told they will lose jobs in what Espiner described as “destroy the village to save the village” strategy.
Whakaata Māori announced 27 job losses earlier this month and the end of Te Ao Māori News every weekday on TV. Its te reo channel will go online-only.
Digital start-ups with lower overheads than established news publishers and broadcasters are now struggling too.
Spinoff founder Duncan Grieve has charted the economic erosion of the media all year at The Spinoff and on its weekly podcast The Fold.
In a recent edition, he said he could not carry on “pretending things would be fine” and did not want The Spinoff to go down without giving people the chance to save it.
“We get some (revenue) direct from our audience through members, some commercial revenue and we get funding for various New Zealand on Air projects typically,” Greive told RNZ Mediawatch this week.
“The members’ bucket is pretty solid. The commercial bucket was going quite well, and then we just ran into a brick wall. There has been a real system-wide shock to commercial revenues.
“But the thing that we didn’t predict which caused us to have to publish that open letter was New Zealand on Air. We’ve been able to rely on getting one or two projects up, but we’ve missed out two rounds in a row. Maybe our projects . . . weren’t good enough, but it certainly had this immediate, near-existential challenge for us.”
Critics complained The Spinoff has had millions of dollars in public money in its first decade.
“While the state is under no obligation to fund our work, it’s hard to watch as other platforms continue to be heavily backed while your own funding stops dead,” Greive said in the open letter.
The open letter said Creative NZ funding had been halved this year, and the Public Interest Journalism Fund support for two of The Spinoff’s team of 31 was due to run out next year.
“I absolutely take on the chin the idea that we shouldn’t be reliant on that funding. Once you experience something year after year, you do build your business around that . . . for the coming year. When a hard-to-predict event like that comes along, you are in a situation where you have to scramble,” Grieve told Mediawatch.
“We shot a flare up that our audience has responded to. We’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re really pleased with the strength of support and an influx of members.”
Paddy Gower outside the Newshub studio after news of its closure. Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi
Newshub shutdown A recent addition to The Spinoff’s board — Glen Kyne — has already felt the force of the media’s economic headwinds in 2024.
“It was heart-wrenching because we had looked at and tried everything leading into that announcement. I go back to July 2022, when we started to see money coming out of the market and the cost of living crisis starting to appear,” Kyne told Mediawatch this week.
“We started taking steps immediately and were incredibly prudent with cost management. We would get to a point where we felt reasonably confident that we had a path, but the floor beneath our feet — in terms of the commercial market — kept falling. You’re seeing this with TVNZ right now.”
Warner Brothers Discovery is a multinational player in broadcast media. Did they respond to requests for help?
“They were empathetic. But Warner Brothers Discovery had lost 60-70 percent of its share price because of the issues around global media companies as well. They were very determined that we got the company to a position of profitability as quickly as we possibly could. But ultimately the economics were such that we had to make the decision.”
Smaller but sustainable in 2025? Or managed decline?
Glen Kyne is a recent addition to the Spinoff’s board . . . “It’s slightly terrifying because the downward pressures are going to continue into next year.” Image: RNZ/Nick Monro
He is one of a handful of people who know the sums, but Stuff is certainly producing ThreeNews now with a fraction of the former budget for Newshub.
Can media outlets settle on a shape that will be sustainable, but smaller — and carry on in 2025 and beyond? Or does Kyne fear media are merely managing decline if revenue continues to slump?
“It’s slightly terrifying because the downward pressures are going to continue into next year. Three created a sustainable model for the 6pm bulletin to continue.
“Stuff is an enormous newsgathering organisation, so they were able to make it work and good luck to them. I can see that bulletin continuing to improve as the team get more experience.”
No news is really bad news If news can’t be sustained at scale in commercial media companies even on reduced budgets, what then?
Some are already pondering a “post-journalism” future in which social media takes over as the memes of sharing news and information.
How would that pan out?
“We might be about to find out,” Greive told Mediawatch.
“Journalism doesn’t have a monopoly on information, and there are all kinds of different institutions that now have channels. A lot of what is created . . . has a factual basis. Whether it’s a TikTok-er or a YouTuber, they are themselves consumers of news.
“A lot of people are replacing a habit of reading the newspaper and listening to ZB or RNZ with a new habit — consuming social media. Some of it has a news-like quality but it doesn’t have vetting of the information and membership of the Media Council . . . as a way of restraining behaviour.
“We’ve got a big question facing us as a society. Either news becomes this esoteric, elite habit that is either pay-walled or alternatively there’s public media. If we [lose] freely-accessible, mass-audience channels, then we’ll find out what democracy, the business sector, the cultural sector looks like without that.
“In communities where there isn’t a single journalist, a story can break or someone can put something out . . . and if there’s no restraint on that and no check on it, things are going to happen.
“In other countries, most notably Australia, they’ve recognised this looming problem, and there’s a quite muscular and joined-up regulator and legislator to wrestle with the challenges that represents. And we’re just not seeing that here.”
They are in Australia.
In addition to the News Bargaining Code and the just-signalled News Bargaining Incentive, the Albanese government is banning social media for under-16s. Meta has responded to pressure to combat financial scam advertising on Facebook.
To-do in 2025 “There are fairly obvious things that could be done that are being done in other jurisdictions, even if it’s as simple as having a system of fines and giving the Commerce Commission the power to sort of scrutinise large technology platforms,” Greive told Mediawatch.
“You’ve got this general sense of malaise over the country and a government that’s looking for a narrative. It’s shocking when you see Australia, where it’s arguably the biggest political story — but here we’re just doing nothing.”
Not quite. There was the holiday ad reform legislation this week.
“Allowing broadcasting Christmas Day and Easter is a drop in the ocean that’s not going to materially change the outcome for any company here,” Kyne told Mediawatch.
“The Fair Digital News Bargaining bill was conceived three years ago and the world has changed immeasurably.
“You’ve seen Australia also put some really thoughtful white papers together on media regulation that really does bring a level of equality between the global platforms and the local media and to have them regulated under common legislation — a bit like an Ofcom operates in the UK, where both publishers and platforms, together are overseen and managed accordingly.
“That’s the type of thing we’re desperate for in New Zealand. If we don’t get reform over the next couple of years you are going to see more community newspapers or radio stations or other things no longer able to operate.”
Grieve was one of the media execs who pushed for Commerce Commission approval for media to bargain collectively with Google and Meta for news payments.
Backing the Bill – or starting again? Local media executives, including Grieve, recently met behind closed doors to re-assess their strategy.
“Some major industry participants are still quite gung-ho with the legislation and think that Google is bluffing when it says that it will turn news off and break its agreements. And then you’ve got another group that think that they’re not bluffing, and that events have since overtaken [the legislation],” he said.
“The technology platforms have products that are always in motion. What they’re essentially saying — particularly to smaller countries like New Zealand — is: ‘You don’t really get to make laws. We decide what can and can’t be done’.
“And that’s quite a confronting thing for legislators. It takes quite a backbone and quite a lot of confidence to sort of stand up to that kind of pressure.”
The government just appointed a minister of rail to take charge of the current Cook Strait ferry crisis. Do we need a minister of social media or tech to take charge of policy on this part of the country’s infrastructure?
“We’ve had successive governments that want to be open to technology, and high growth businesses starting here.
“But so much of the internet is controlled by a small handful of platforms that can have an anti-competitive relationship with innovation in any kind of business that seeks to build on land that they consider theirs,” Greive said.
“A lot of what’s happened in Australia has come because the ACCC, their version of the Commerce Commission, has got a a unit which scrutinises digital platforms in much the same way that we do with telecommunications, the energy market and so on.
“Here there is just no one really paying attention. And as a result, we’re getting radically different products than they do in Australia.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Israeli soldiers have been denied visas to enter Australia over war crime concerns — and the New Zealand government is now being called on by Palestine solidarity activists to act immediately to stop Israeli soldiers visiting.
Some Israeli soldiers have been denied visas to enter Australia after being required to fill in a 13-page form designed to determine if they had been involved in war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.
The Middle East Eye reports Israeli visa applicants are asked about their involvement in physical or psychological abuse, their roles as guards or officials in detention facilities, and whether they had participated in war crimes or genocide.
This follows last month’s ruling from the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity over atrocities committed since October 7 last year.
However, Israelis coming to New Zealand face no such requirements, says the Palestine Solidarity Network (PSNA)
Since 2019, Israelis have been able to enter New Zealand for three months without needing a visa. This visa-waiver is used by Israeli soldiers today for “rest and recreation” from the genocide in Gaza.
“We face having Israeli soldiers rejected by Australia over war crime concerns jumping on a plane to New Zealand,” said PSNA national chair John Minto in a statement.
‘Suspend all IDF visas’ call
“We cannot depend on Israeli soldiers to give accurate reports of their involvement in war crimes so we have asked the government to suspend all visas for Israelis who are serving or who have served in the Israeli Defence Force [IDF].”
United Nations officials, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and now Amnesty International have all used the term genocide to describe the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza where more than 45,000 People – mostly women and children – have been slaughtered by the IDF.
“Last month, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Minto said.
“All the red flags for genocide have been visible for months but our National-led coalition government is giving the green light to those responsible for war crimes to enter New Zealand.
“New Zealand’s response to genocide in Gaza has been a cowardly refusal to stand up for the Genocide Convention which requires us to ‘prevent and punish’ the crime of genocide.
“This needs to change today.”
Former Israeli justice minister barred
Australia’s recent denial of visas to two Israeli soldiers — siblings in one family — follows a similar case involving the former Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who was denied a visa last month over fears of “incitement”, reports the Middle East Eye.
The Australian Department of Home Affairs told the former Israeli justice minister she had been denied a visa to travel to the country under the Migration Act.
The act allows the government to deny entry to individuals likely to “vilify Australians” or “incite discord” within the local community.
The charge of “advocating genocide” against Australian Mark Regev, a former Israeli ambassador to Britain and spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will head to the International Criminal Court after Australia’s prosecution service dropped the case following a diplomatic note from Israel.
The charge against Regev was brought initially in a private prosecution by Uncle Robbie Thorpe, an indigenous Krautungalung Elder and human rights advocate.
Thorpe charged Regev with aligning himself as a government spokesman with statements made by Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, which the U.N. special rapporteur for the Palestinian occupied territories called genocidal.
Norwegian defence company Kongsberg announced on 10 December that it had successfully performed the first-ever launch of a representative Naval Strike Missile (NSM) from an Australian-made launcher at the Commonwealth Joint Proofing Experimental Unit (JPEU) in Port Wakefield, South Australia. According to Kongsberg, the test was conducted under the auspices of the Australian Department of […]
Pacific police chiefs have formally opened the headquarters and training center for a new stand-by, mutual assistance force in Australia to support countries during civil unrest, natural disasters and major events.
The Pacific Policing Initiative was declared operational just 17 months after chiefs agreed in 2023 on the need to create a multinational unit, with US$270 million (A$400 million) in funding from Australia.
The PPI comes as Australia and its allies are locked in a geostrategic contest for influence in the region with China, including over security and policing.
Riots in Solomon Islands and violence in Papua New Guinea, the region’s increased exposure to climate change impacts, escalating transnational crime and securing a higher standing internationally for the Pacific’s forces were key drivers.
PNG Police Commissioner David Manning (centre) flanked by Vanuatu Police Commissioner Robson Iavro (left), Australian Federal Police commissioner Reece Kershaw (second right) and Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus at the PPI launch on Tuesday. Image: BenarNews/Stefan Armbruster
At a flag-raising ceremony in Brisbane on Tuesday, Papua New Guinea’s Police Commissioner David Manning hailed the PPI’s funding as an “unprecedented investment” in the region.
“The PPI provides a clear, effective, and agile mechanism to which we can support our Pacific family in times of need to uphold the law and maintain order in security,” said Manning, who chairs the PPI design steering committee.
He said issues in deploying foreign police throughout the region still needed to be resolved but the 22 member nations and territories were “close to completing the guiding legal framework around Pacific Island countries to be able to tap into this.”
The constitutional difficulties of deploying foreign police are well known to Manning after PNG’s highest court ruled two decades ago that a deployment of Australian Federal Police there was illegal.
“That incident alone has taught us many lessons,” he said, adding changes had been made to the Constitution and relevant legislation to receive assistance and also to deploy to other countries lawfully.
Manning said no deployments of the Pacific Support Group had currently been requested by Pacific nations.
Impetus for the PPI was a secretive policing and security deal Beijing signed with Solomon Islands in 2022 that caused alarm in Washington and Canberra.
Several other Pacific nations — including Tonga, Samoa and Kiribati — also have policing arrangements with China to provide training and equipment. On Monday, Vanuatu received police boats and vehicles valued at US$4 million from Beijing.
“I wouldn’t say it locks China out, all I’m saying is that we now have an opportunity to determine what is best for the Pacific,” Manning said.
“Our countries in the Pacific have different approaches in terms of their relationship with China. I’m not brave enough to speak on their behalf, but as for us, it is purely policing.”
Samoan Police Minister Lefau Harry Schuster on Tuesday also announced his country would be hosting the PPI’s third “center of excellence”, specialising in forensics, alongside ones in PNG and Fiji.
He said the PPI will use the Samoan Police Academy built by China and opened in June.
“We wanted it to be used not just for Samoa, but to open up for use by the region,” Schuster said in Brisbane.
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw said the PPI “symbolises our commitment as part of the Pacific region” and enhances the Pacific’s standing internationally.
“Asia represents Australia and the Pacific at the moment at Interpol,” he said. “We want to show leadership in the region and we want a bit more status and recognition from Interpol.”
Kershaw said “crime in our region is becoming more complex”, including large seizures of drug shipments.
“The fact is that we’re able to work together in a seamless way and combat, say, transnational, serious and organized crime as a serious threat in our region.”
“At the same time, we’ve all got domestic issues and I think we’re learning faster and better about how to deal with domestic issues and international issues at the same time.”
Police ministers and chiefs from across the Pacific attended the launch of the PPI’s Pinkenba Hub on Tuesday. Image: BenarNews/Stefan Armbruster
Asked about tackling community policing of issues like gender-based violence, he said it was all part of the “complex” mix.
The Australian and Samoan facilities complete the three arms of the PPI consisting of the Pacific Support Group, three regional training centers and the co-ordination hub in Brisbane.
The Pinkenba centre in Brisbane will provide training — including public order management, investigations, close personal protection — and has accommodation for 140 people.
Training began in July, with 30 officers from 11 nations who were deployed to Samoa to help with security during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October, the largest event the country has ever hosted.
Schuster expressed surprise about how quickly the PPI was established and thanked Australia and the region for their support.
“This is one initiative I’m very happy that we didn’t quite do it the Pacific way. [The] Pacific way takes time, a long time, we talk and talk and talk,” he joked.
“So I look forward to an approach like this in the future, so that we do things first and then open it later.”
This article is republished from BenarNewswith permission.
Political commentators see the Nauru-Australia Treaty signed this week by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Nauru’s President David Adeang as a move to limit China’s influence in the region.
Refugee advocates claim it is effectively a bribe to ensure Australia can keep dumping its refugees on Nauru, where much of the terrain is an industrial wasteland following decades of phosphate mining.
The Refugee Action Coalition told RNZ Pacific that there were currently between 95 and 100 detainees at the facility, the bulk of whom are from China and Bangladesh.
The Nauru-Australia Treaty signed by Nauru’s President David Adeang (left) and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Monday. Image: Facebook/Anthony Albanese/RNZ Pacific
The deal was said to have been struck after months of secretive bilateral talks, on the back of lucrative counter offers from China.
The treaty ensures that Australia retains a veto right over a range of pacts that Nauru could enter into with other countries.
In a written statement, Albanese described the agreement as a win-win situation.
“The Nauru-Australia treaty will strengthen Nauru’s long-term stability and economic resilience. This treaty is an agreement that meets the need of both countries and serves our shared interest in a peaceful, secure and prosperous region,” he said.
‘Motivated by strategic concerns’ – expert However, a geopolitics expert says Australia’s motivations are purely selfish.
Australian National University research fellow Dr Benjamin Herscovitch said the detention centre had bipartisan support and was a crucial part of Australia’s domestic migration policies.
“The Australian government is motivated by very self-interested strategic concerns here,” Herscovitch told RNZ Pacific.
“They are not ultimately doing it because they want to assist the people of Nauru, Canberra is doing it because it wants to keep China at bay and it wants to keep offshore processing in play.”
The Refugee Action Coalition in Sydney agrees.
The Coalition’s spokesperson Ian Rintoul said Canberra had effectively bribed Nauru so it could keep refugees out of Australia.
“It’s a very sordid game. It’s a corrupt arrangement that the Australian government has actually bought Nauru and made it a wing of its domestic anti-refugee policies,” he said.
“It’s small beer for the Australian government that thinks that off-shore detention is critical to its domestic political policies.”
Rintoul said that in the past foreign aid had not been used to improve life for Nauruans.
“The relationship between Nauru and Australia is pretty extraordinary and Nauru has been able to effectively extort huge amounts of foreign aid to upgrade their prison, they’ve built sports facilities,” he said.
“I suspect a large amount of it has also found its way into the pockets of various elites.”
Herscovitch said Nauru is in a prime position to negotiate with its former coloniser.
“When China comes knocking, Australia immediately gets nervous and wants to put on the table offers that will keep those Pacific countries coming back to Australia.
“That provides a wide range of Pacific countries with a huge amount of leverage to extract better terms from Australia.”
He added it was unclear exactly how the funds would be used in Nauru.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The incoming Trump administration will bring a dangerous brew of Christian nationalism and anti-Palestinian racism
Things can always get worse. Much worse.
The Biden/Harris administration has bank-rolled and funded Israel’s mass slaughter in Gaza, the sight of the highest number of child amputees per capita in the world.
Israeli soldiers wilfully post their crimes online for all the globe to see. Palestinian journalists are being deliberately targeted by Israel in an unprecedented way.
Every day brings new horrors in Gaza, Lebanon and beyond. And that’s not ignoring the catastrophes in Syria, Sudan and Myanmar.
But we can’t despair or disengage. It can be hard with an incoming Trump White House stuffed with radicals, evangelicals and bigots but now is not the time to do so.
We must keep on reporting, investigating, sharing, talking and raising public awareness of the real threats that surround us every day (from the climate crisis to nuclear war) and finding ways to solve them.
Always find hope.
New global project
Here’s some breaking news. I’ve said nothing about this publicly. Until now.
I’ve spent much of the year working on a documentary film series inspired by my best-selling book, The Palestine Laboratory. I’ve travelled to seven countries over many months, filming under the radar due to the sensitivity of the material.
I can’t say much more at this stage except that it’s nearly completed and will be released soon on a major global broadcaster.
The photo at the top of the page is me in a clip from the series in an undisclosed location (after I’d completed a voice-over recording session.)
Stay tuned for more. This work will be ground-breaking.
My recent work has largely focused on the worsening disaster in the Middle East and I’ve spoken to media outlets including CNN, Al Jazeera English, Sky News and others.
You can see these on my website and YouTube channel.
I’m an independent journalist without any institutional backing. If you’re able to support me financially, by donating money to continue this work, I’d hugely appreciate it.
The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) has shortlisted two foreign shipbuilders to develop a replacement for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)’s ageing ANZAC-class frigates under the A$10 billion SEA3000 general-purpose frigate programme, it announced on 25 November. According to the DoD, the two downselected companies – out of an initial group of five shipbuilders – […]
Australia’s government is being condemned by climate action groups for discouraging the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from ruling in favour of a court action brought by Vanuatu to determine legal consequences for states that fail to meet fossil reduction commitments.
In its submission before the ICJ at The Hague yesterday, Australia argued that climate action obligations under any legal framework should not extend beyond the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.
It has prompted a backlash, with Greenpeace accusing Australia’s government of undermining the court case.
“I’m very disappointed,” said Vepaiamele Trief, a Ni-Van Save the Children Next Generation Youth Ambassador, who is present at The Hague.
“To go to the ICJ and completely go against what we are striving for, is very sad to see.
“As a close neighbour of the Pacific Islands, Australia has a duty to support us.”
RNZ Pacific reports Vanuatu’s special envoy to climate change says their case to the ICJ is based on the argument that those harming the climate are breaking international law.
Special Envoy Ralph Regenvanu told RNZ Morning Report they are not just talking about countries breaking climate law.
Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.
Climate @CIJ_ICJ hearings day 1 recap: called for climate justice, self-determination & accountability talks of climate leadership but argues against binding human rights exposed polluters hiding behind the #ParisAgreement to dodge accountability.https://t.co/PB86XFpwzApic.twitter.com/KI1hOKAM0G
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel_tweets) December 3, 2024
A landmark case that began in a Pacific classroom and could change the course of future climate talks is about to be heard in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The court will begin hearings involving a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, today.
Its 15 judges have been asked, for the first time, to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail.
The court’s findings could bolster the cases of nations taking legal action against big polluters failing to reduce emissions, experts say.
They could also strengthen the hand of Pacific Island nations in future climate change negotiations like COP.
Vanuatu, one of the world’s most natural disaster-prone nations, is leading the charge in the international court.
The road to the ICJ — nicknamed the “World Court” — started five years ago when a group of University of the South Pacific law students studying in Vanuatu began discussing how they could help bring about climate action.
“This case is really another example of Pacific Island countries being global leaders on the climate crisis,” Dr Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW’s Institute for Climate Risk and Response, said.
“It’s an amazing David and Goliath moment.”
Environmental advocates and lawyers from around the world will come to the International Court of Justice for the court case. Image: CC BY-SA 4.0/ Velvet
Meanwhile, experts say the Pacific will be watching Australia’s testimony today closely.
So what is the court case about exactly, and how did it get to this point?
From classroom to World Court Cynthia Houniuhi, from Solomon Islands, remembers clearly the class discussion where it all began.
Students at the University of the South Pacific’s campus in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, turned their minds to the biggest issue faced by their home countries.
While their communities were dealing with sea level rise and intense cyclones, there was an apparent international “deadlock” on climate change action, Houniuhi said.
And each new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a bleak picture of their futures.
“These things are real to us,” Hounhiuhi said. “And we cannot accept that . . . fate in the IPCC report.
“[We’re] not accepting that there’s nothing we can do.”
Their lecturer tasked them with finding a legal avenue for action. He challenged them to be ambitious. And he told them to take it out of their classroom to their national leaders.
So the students settled on an idea: Ask the World Court to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of states to protect the climate against greenhouse gas emissions.
“That’s what resonated to us,” Houniuhi, now president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said.
Students were motivated to take action after seeing how sea level rise had affected communities across the Pacific. Image: Britt Basel/RNZ Pacific
They sent out letters to Pacific Island governments asking for support and Vanuatu’s then-Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu agreed to meet with the students.
Vanuatu took up the cause and built a coalition of countries pushing the UN General Assembly to send the matter to its main judicial body, the International Court of Justice, for an advisory opinion.
In March last year, they succeeded when the UN nations unanimously adopted the resolution to refer the case — a historic first for the UN General Assembly.
Speakers at the UN General Assembly hailed the decision to send the case to the International Court of Justice as a milestone in a decades-long struggle for climate justice. Image: X/@UN
It was a decision celebrated with a parade on the streets of Port Vila.
Australian National University professor in international law Dr Donald Rothwell said Pacific nations had already overcome their biggest challenge in building enough support for the case to be heard.
“From the perspective of Vanuatu and the small island and other states who brought these proceedings, this is quite a momentous occasion, if only because these states rarely have appeared before the International Court of Justice,” he said.
“This is the first occasion where they’ve really had the ability to raise these issues in the World Court, and that in itself will attract an enormous amount of global attention and raise awareness.”
Dr Sue Farran, a professor of comparative law at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, said getting the case before the ICJ was also part of achieving climate justice.
“It’s recognition that certain peoples have suffered more than others as a result of climate change,” she said.
“And justice means addressing wrongs where people have been harmed.”
A game changer on climate? Nearly 100 countries will speak over two weeks of hearings — an unprecedented number, Professor Rothwell said.
Each has only a short, 30-minute slot to make their argument.
The court will decide on two questions: What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions?
And, what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate and environment?
Vanuatu will open the hearings with its testimony.
Regenvanu, now Vanuatu’s special envoy on climate change, said the case was timely in light of the last COP meeting, where financial commitments from rich, polluting nations fell short of the mark for Pacific Islands that needed funding to deal with climate change.
Vanuatu’s climate change envoy Ralph Regenvanu said the ICJ case was about climate justice. Image: Hilaire Bule/RNZ Pacific
For a nation hit with three cyclones last year — and where natural disaster-struck schools have spent months teaching primary students in hot UNICEF tents – the stakes are high in climate negotiations.
“We just graduated from being a least-developed country a few years ago,” Regenvanu said.
“We don’t have the financial capacity to build back better, build back quicker, respond and recover quicker.
“We need the resources that other countries were able to attain and become rich through fossil fuel development that caused this crisis we are now facing.
“That’s why we’re appearing before the ICJ. We want justice in terms of allowing us to have the same capacity to respond quickly after catastrophic events.”
He said the advisory opinion would stop unnecessary debates that bog down climate negotiations, by offering legal clarity on the obligations of states on climate change.
Three cyclones struck Vanuatu in 2023, including Tropical Cyclone Lola, which damaged buildings on Ambrym Island. Image: Sam Tasso/RNZ Pacific
It will also help define controversial terms, such as “climate finance” — which developing nations argue should not include loans.
And while the court’s advisory opinion will be non-binding, it also has the potential to influence climate change litigation around the world.
Dr Rothwell said much would depend on how the court answered the case’s second question – on the consequences for states that failed to take climate action.
He said an opinion that favoured small island nations, like in the Pacific Islands, would let them pursue legal action with more certainty.
“That could possibly open up a battleground for major international litigation into the future, subject to how the [International Court of Justice] answers that question,” he said.
Regenvanu said Vanuatu was already looking at options it could take once the court issues its advisory opinion.
“Basically all options are on the table from litigation on one extreme, to much clearer negotiation tactics, based on what the advisory opinion says, at the forthcoming couple of COPs.”
‘This is hope’ Vanuatu brought the case to the ICJ with the support of a core group of 18 countries, including New Zealand, Germany, Bangladesh and Singapore.
Australia, which co-sponsored the UN resolution sending the case to the ICJ, will also speak at today’s hearings.
“Many will be watching closely, but Vanuatu will be watching more closely than anyone, having led this process,” Dr Morgan said.
A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson said Australia had engaged consistently with the court proceedings, reflecting its support for the Pacific’s commitment to strengthening global climate action.
Some countries have expressed misgivings about taking the case to the ICJ.
The United States’ representative at the General Assembly last year argued diplomacy was a better way to address climate change.
And over the two weeks of court hearings this month, it’s expected nations contributing most to greenhouse gases will argue for a narrow reading of their responsibilities to address climate change under international law — one that minimises their obligations.
Other nations will argue that human rights laws and other international agreements — like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — give these nations larger obligations to prevent climate change.
Professor Rothwell said it was hard to predict what conclusion the World Court would reach — and he expected the advisory opinion would not arrive until as late as October next year.
“When we’re looking at 15 judges, when we’re looking at a wide range of legal treaties and conventions upon which the court is being asked to address these questions, it’s really difficult to speculate at this point,” he said.
“We’ll very much just have to wait and see what the outcome is.”
There’s the chance the judges will be split, or they will not issue a strong advisory opinion.
But Regenvanu is drawing hope from a recent finding in a similar case at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, which found countries are obliged to protect the oceans from climate change impacts.
“It’s given us a great deal of validation that what we will get out of the ICJ will be favourable,” he said.
For Houniuhi, the long journey from the Port Vila classroom five years ago is about to lead finally to the Peace Palace in The Hague, where the ICJ will have its hearings.
Houniuhi said the case would let her and her fellow students have their experiences of climate change reflected at the highest level.
But for her, the court case has another important role.
Despite it being illegal in Australia to recruit soldiers for foreign armies, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) recruiters are hard at work enticing young Australians to join Israel’s army. Michael West Media investigates.
INVESTIGATION:By Yaakov Aharon
The Israeli war machine is in hyperdrive, and it needs new bodies to throw into the fire. In July, The Department of Home Affairs stated that there were only four Australians who had booked flights to Israel and whom it suspected of intending to join the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
The Australian Border Force intervened with three of the four but clarified that they did not “necessarily prevent them from leaving”.
MWM understands a batch of Australian recruits is due to arrive in Israel in January, and this is not the first batch of recruits to receive assistance as IDF soldiers through this Australian programme.
Many countries encourage certain categories of immigrants and discourage others. However, Israel doesn’t just want Palestinians out and Jews in — they want Jews of fighting age, who will be conscripted shortly after arrival.
The IDF’s “Lone Soldiers” are soldiers who do not have parents living in Israel. Usually, this means 18-year-old immigrants with basic Hebrew who may never have spent longer than a school camp away from home.
There are a range of Israeli government programmes, charities, and community centres that support the Lone Soldiers’ integration into society prior to basic training.
The most robust of these programs is Garin Tzabar, where there are only 90 days between hugging mum and dad goodbye at Sydney Airport and the drill sergeant belting orders in a foreign language.
The Garin Tzabar website. Image: MWM
Garin Tzabar
In 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked Minister for Aliyah [Immigration] and Integration, Tzipi Livni, to significantly increase the number of people in the Garin Tzabar programme.
The IDF website states that Garin Tzabar “is a unique project, a collaborative venture of the Meitav Unit in the IDF, the Scout movement, the security-social wing of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Immigration and Absorption, which began in 1991”. (Translated from Hebrew via Google Translate.)
The Meitav Unit is divided into many different branches, most of which are responsible for overseeing new recruits.
Powerful and unique journalism by @yaakov_aharon on a story that receives shamefully little coverage in Australia; the recruitment of Australians to serve in the Israeli military: https://t.co/OdNVzzMEbx
However, the pride of the Meitav Unit is the branch dedicated to recruiting all the unique population groups that are not subject to the draft (eg. Ultra-Orthodox Jews). This branch is then divided into three further Departments.
In a 2020 interview, the Head of Meitav’s Tzabar Department, Lieutenant Noam Delgo, referred to herself as someone who “recruits olim chadishim (new immigrants).” She stated:
“Our main job in the army is to help Garin Tzabar members to recruit . . . The best thing about Garin Tzabar is the mashakyot (commanders). Every time you wake up in the morning you have two amazing soldiers — really intelligent — with pretty high skills, just managing your whole life, teaching you Hebrew, helping you with all the bureaucratic systems in Israel, getting profiles, seeing doctors and getting those documents, and finishing the whole process.”
The contact point for Australian recruits is Shoval Magal, the executive director of Garin Tzabar Australia. The registered address is a building shared by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Zionist Council of NSW, the community’s peak bodies in the state.
“Until three months ago, Tali [REDACTED], from Sydney, Australia, and Moises [REDACTED], from Mexico City, were ordinary teenagers. But on December 25, they arrived at their new family here in Israel — the “Garin Tzabar” family, and in a moment, they will become soldiers. In a special project, we accompanied them from the day of admission (to the program) until just before the recruitment.“ (Translated from Hebrew via Google Translate).
Michael Manhaim was the executive director of Garin Tzabar Australia from 2018 to 2023. He wrote an article, “Becoming a Lone Soldier”,’ for the 2021 annual newsletter of Betar Australia, a Zionist youth group for children. In the article, Manhaim writes:
“The programme starts with the unique preparation process in Australia.
. . . It only takes one step; you just need to choose which foot will lead the way. We will be there for the rest.”
A criminal activity MWM is not alleging that any of the parties mentioned in this article have broken the law. It is not a crime if a person chooses to join a foreign army.
A person commits an offence if the person recruits, in Australia, another person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
It is a further offence to facilitate or promote recruitment for a foreign army and to publish recruitment materials. This includes advertising information relating to how a person may serve in a foreign army.
The maximum penalty for each offence is 10 years.
Rawan Arraf, executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, said:
“Unless there has been a specific declaration stating it is not an offence to recruit for the Israel Defence Force, recruitment to a foreign armed force is a criminal offence under Australian law, and the Australian Federal Police should be investigating anyone allegedly involved in recruitment for a foreign armed force.”
Army needing ‘new flesh’ If the IDF are to keep the war on Gaza going, they need to fill old suits of body armour with new grunts.
Reports indicate the death toll within IDF’s ranks is unprecedented — a suicide epidemic is claiming further lives on the home front, and reservists are refusing in droves to return to active duty.
In October, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Bibi Netanyahu of obscuring the facts of Israel’s casualty rate. Any national security story published in Israel must first be approved by the intelligence unit at the Military Censor.
“11,000 soldiers were injured and 890 others killed,” Lapid said, without warning and live on air. There are limits to how much we accept the alternative facts”.
In November 2023, Shoval Magal shared a photo in which she is posing alongside six young Australians, saying, “The participants are eager to have Aliya (immigrate) to Israel, start the programme and join the army”.
These six recruits are the attendees of just one of several seminars that Magal has organised in Melbourne for the summer 2023 cycle, having also organised separate events across cities in Australia.
Magal’s June 2024 newsletter said she was “in the advanced stages of the preparation phase in Australia for the August 2024 Garin”. Most recently, in October 2024, she was “getting ready for Garin Tzabar’s 2024 December cycle.”
Magal’s newsletter for Israeli Scouts in Australia ‘Aliyah Events – November 2024’. Image: MWM
There are five “Aliyah (Immigration) Events” in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. The sponsoring organisations are Garin Tzabar, the Israeli Ministry for Aliyah (Immigration) and Integration, and a who’s who of the Jewish-Australian community.
The star speaker at each event is Alon Katz, an Australian who joined Garin Tzabar in 2018 and is today a reserve IDF soldier. The second speaker, Colonel Golan Vach, was the subject of two Electronic Intifadainvestigations alleging that he had invented the 40 burned babies lie on October 7 to create a motive for Israel’s onslaught in Gaza.
If any Australian signed the papers to become an IDF recruit at these events, is someone liable for the offence of recruiting them to a foreign army?
MWM reached out for comment to Garin Tzabar Australia and the Zionist Federation of Australia to clarify whether the IDF is recruiting in Australia but did not receive a reply.
Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian journalist living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. First published by Michael West Media and republished with permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) has selected Dutch marine company Damen Shipyards Group’s Landing Ship Transport 100 (LST 100) design to address the Australian Army’s littoral operations-focussed Landing Craft Heavy requirement. “The Damen Shipyards Group’s Landing Ship Transport 100 (LST100) will provide a capability which is essential to the restructure and re-posture of the […]
The position of a state broadcaster, one funded directly by taxpayers from a particular country, places it in a delicate position. The risk of alignment with the views of the day, as dictated by one class over another; the danger that one political position will somehow find more air than another, is ever present. The pursuit of objectivity can itself become a distorting dogma.
Like its counterpart in the United Kingdom, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can count itself lucky to be given a place of such dominance in the media market. None of that gimmickry to boost subscriber numbers. No need for annual, or half-yearly fund drives.
Why, then, did the ABC chairman, Kim Williams, do it? And by doing it, this involved attacking US-based podcaster Joe Rogan in an address to the National Press Club in Canberra, a foolish, bumbling excursion into the realms of broadcasting and podcasting the ABC might do well to learn from.
In the question session, when asked about the influence of Rogan (“the world’s most influential podcaster”, sighs the ABC journalist), Williams shows little interest in analysis. Rather than understanding the scope of his appeal, one that drew Donald Trump to the microphone in a meandering conversational epic of waffle and disclosure lasting three hours, he “personally” found “it deeply repulsive, and to think that someone has such remarkable power in the United States is something that I look at in disbelief.” He further felt a sense of “dismay that this can be a source of public entertainment when it’s really treating the public as plunder for purposes that are really quite malevolent.”
Williams makes a point of juxtaposing the weak, impressionable consumer of news – one who will evidently be set straight by the likes of his network – and those of Rogan and his tribe of entrepreneurial podcasting fantasists who “prey on all the elements that contribute to uncertainty in society”, suggesting that “conspiracy outcomes” are merely “a normal part of social narrative”.
It is worth noting here that Williams is a former chief executive of an organisation that loved (and still loves) preying on anxieties, testing the waters of fear, and pushing absurdly demagogic narratives in boosting readership and subscriptions. That most unscrupulous outfit is a certain News Corp, its imperishable tycoon Rupert Murdoch still clinging to the pulpit with savage commitment.
Once Williams crossed the commercial river to become ABC chair, he had something of a peace-loving conversion, all part of a festival of inclusivity that has proven tedious and meretricious. The public broadcaster, he said in June this year, should become “national campfire” to enable a greater understanding of Australia’s diverse communities.
It did not take long for the Williams show of snark to make its way to Rogan Land and his defenders, notably Elon Musk, who spent time with Rogan in the lead-up to November’s US presidential election spruiking the credentials of Trump. Showing how Williams had exposed his flank, and that of the organisation he leads, the tech oligarch, relevantly the director of X Corp (formerly Twitter), was bound to say something given his ongoing skirmishes with Australian regulators and lawmakers in their efforts to regulate access to social media.
From such infantilising bureaucrats as eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to the spluttering Williams who bemoans the “Joe Rogan effect”, Musk is being given, rather remarkably, a whitewash of respectability. Their efforts to protect Australians from any prospect of being offended, mentally corrupted, unduly influenced and one might even say being excited, is of such an order as to beggar belief. With little imagination, Musk retorted with boring predictability: “From the head of Australian government-funded media, their Pravda.”
Williams remains truly dumbfounded by this. “You make a comment in response to a legitimate question from a journalist, you answer it concisely and give an honest answer in terms of what your own perception of what [Rogan] is and suddenly I get this huge pile-on from people in the most aggressive way”. Accusations include having “a warped outlook on the world”, being “an embarrassment” and showing signs of being “unhinged”. Ignorance would be the better distillation here.
There is something to be said about Williams being hermetic to media forms that have prevented him from getting to the national campfire he championed. He speaks of communities and users as vague constructions rather than accessible groups. He also ignores, for instance, that Rogan was open to allowing Trump’s opponent, the Democrat contender, Kamala Harris, to come onto his program conducted in his Texas podcast studio during the campaign. This offer was eventually withdrawn given the conditions Harris, ever terrified by unscripted formats and lengthy interviews, demanded Rogan follow. The strategists and handlers had to have their say, and for their role and for Harris’s caution, she paid a price.
For a man with a News Corp pedigree and one no doubt familiar with the Murdoch Empire’s creepy techniques of influence and seduction exercised over the electorates and political processes of other countries – the United States, the UK and Australia immediately come to mind – Williams has shown himself the media iteration of a bamboozled, charmless Colonel Blimp.
Williams might best focus on the problems at his own broadcaster, the organisation the Australians call Auntie. It boasts, constantly, that it is the place where “news” can be found, but more importantly, “news you can trust”. But the current iteration of news remains bland, benign and pitifully regulated. It is clear what the talking points are when it comes to reporting on such areas of the world as the Middle East. Killings by the Israeli Defence Forces, even if they do involve the liquidation of whole buildings and villagers, are never massacres but measures of overzealous self-defence. Hamas and Hezbollah, being Israel’s adversaries, are always prefaced as indulgent terrorists. The list goes on, and, it would seem, the problems Williams is facing.
Despite Australia’s draconian anti-protest laws, the world’s biggest coal port was closed for four hours at the weekend with 170 protesters being charged — but climate demonstrations will continue. Twenty further arrests were made at a protest at the Federal Parliament yesterday.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Wendy Bacon
Newcastle port, the world’s biggest coal port, was closed for four hours on Sunday when hundreds of Rising Tide protesters in kayaks refused to leave its shipping channel.
Over two days of protest at the Australian port, 170 protesters have been charged. Some others who entered the channel were arrested but released without charge. Hundreds more took to the water in support.
Thousands on the beach chanted, danced and created a huge human sign demanding “no new coal and gas” projects.
Rising Tide is campaigning for a 78 percent tax on fossil fuel profits to be used for a “just transition” for workers and communities, including in the Hunter Valley, where the Albanese government has approved three massive new coal mine extensions since 2022.
Protest size triples to 7000 The NSW Labor government made two court attempts to block the protest from going ahead. But the 10-day Rising Tide protest tripled in size from 2023 with 7000 people participating so far and more people arrested in civil disobedience actions than last year.
The “protestival” continued in Newcastle on Monday, and a new wave started in Canberra at the Australian Parliament yesterday with more than 20 arrests. Rising Tide staged an overnight occupation of the lawn outside Parliament House and a demonstration at which they demanded to meet with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
News of the “protestival” has spread around the world, with campaigners in Rotterdam in The Netherlands blocking a coal train in solidarity with this year’s Rising Tide protest.
Of those arrested, 138 have been charged under S214A of the NSW Crimes Act for disrupting a major facility, which carries up to two years in prison and $22,000 maximum fines. This section is part of the NSW government regime of “anti-protest” laws designed to deter movements such as Rising Tide.
The rest of the protesters have been charged under the Marine Safety Act which police used against 109 protesters arrested last year.
Even if found guilty, these people are likely to only receive minor penalties.Those arrested in 2023 mostly received small fines, good behaviour bonds and had no conviction recorded.
On Sunday I was arrested for blockading the world’s largest coal port, and now I am here in Canberra, to voice the anger of my generation.
I wrote to @AlboMP weeks ago inviting him to stand here today, on these lawns, and explain himself to the young people of Australia. pic.twitter.com/QgxjTApS92
Executive gives the bird to judiciary The use of the Crimes Act will focus more attention on the anti-protest laws which the NSW government has been extending and strengthening in recent weeks. The NSW Supreme Court has already found the laws to be partly unconstitutional but despite huge opposition from civil society and human rights organisations, the NSW government has not reformed them.
Two protesters were targeted for special treatment: Naomi Hodgson, a key Rising Tide organiser, and Andrew George, who has previous protest convictions.
George was led into court in handcuffs on Monday morning but was released on bail on condition that he not return to the port area. Hodgson also has a record of peaceful protest. She is one of the Rising Tide leaders who have always stressed the importance of safe and peaceful action.
The police prosecutor argued that she should remain in custody. The magistrate released her with the extraordinary requirement that she report to police daily and not go nearer than 2 km from the port.
Planning for this year’s protest has been underway for 12 months, with groups forming in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra Sydney and the Northern Rivers, as well as Newcastle. There was an intensive programme of meetings and briefings of potential participants on the motivation for protesting, principles of civil disobedience and the experience of being arrested.
Those who attended last year recruited a whole new cohort of protesters.
Last year, the NSW police authorised a protest involved a 48-hour blockade which protesters extended by two hours. Earlier this year, a similar application was made by Rising Tide.
The first indication that the police would refuse to authorise a protest came earlier this month when the NSW police successfully applied to the NSW Supreme Court for the protest to be declared “an unauthorised protest.”
But Justice Desmond Fagan also made it clear that Rising Tide had a “responsible approach to on-water safety” and that he was not giving a direction that the protest should be terminated. Newcastle Council agreed that Rising Tide could camp at Horseshoe Bay.
People got the power! Eye witnesses say 24 protestors were arrested for protesting at parliament today, demanding the Albanese Government stop new coal. pic.twitter.com/ueNjHogzWZ
Minns’ bid to crush protest The Minns government showed that its goal was to crush the protest altogether when the Minister for Transport Jo Haylen declared a blanket 97-hour exclusion zone making it unlawful to enter the Hunter River mouth and beaches under the Marine Safety Act last week.
On Friday, Rising Tide organiser and 2020 Newcastle Young Citizen of the year, Alexa Stuart took successful action in the Supreme Court to have the exclusion zone declared an invalid use of power.
An hour before the exclusion zone was due to come into effect at 5 pm, the Rising Tide flotilla had been launched off Horseshoe Bay. At 4 pm, Supreme Court Justice Sarah McNaughton quashed the exclusion zone notice, declaring that it was an invalid use of power under the Marine Safety Act because the object of the Act is to facilitate events, not to stop them from happening altogether.
When news of the judge’s decision reached the beach, a big cheer erupted. The drama-packed weekend was off to a good start.
Friday morning began with a First Nations welcome and speeches and a SchoolStrike4Climate protest. Kayakers held their position on the harbour with an overnight vigil on Friday night.
On Saturday, Midnight Oil front singer Peter Garrett, who served as Environment Minister in a previous Labor government, performed in support of Rising Tide protest. He expressed his concern about government overreach in policing protests, especially in the light of all the evidence of the impacts of climate change.
Ships continued to go through the channel, protected by the NSW police. When kayakers entered the channel while it was empty, nine were arrested.
84-year-old great-gran arrested, not charged By late Saturday, three had been charged, and the other six were towed back to the beach. This included June Norman, an 84-year-old great-grandmother from Queensland, who entered the shipping channel at least six times over the weekend in peaceful acts of civil disobedience.
The 84-year-old protester Jane Norman . . . entered the shipping channel at least six times over the weekend in peaceful acts of civil disobedience. Image: Wendy Bacon/MWM
She told MWM that she felt a duty to act to protect her own grandchildren and all other children due to a failure by the Albanese and other governments to take action on climate change. The police repeatedly declined to charge her.
On Sunday morning a decision was made for kayakers “to take the channel”. At about 10.15, a coal boat, turned away before entering the port.
Port closed, job done Although the period of stoppage was shorter than last year, civil disobedience had now achieved what the authorised protest achieved last year. The port was officially closed and remained so for four hours.
By now, 60 people had been charged and far more police resources expended than in 2023, including hours of police helicopters and drones.
On Sunday afternoon, hundreds of kayakers again occupied the channel. A ship was due. Now in a massive display of force involving scores of police in black rubber zodiacs, police on jet skis, and a huge police launch, kayakers were either arrested or herded back from the channel.
When the channel was clear, a huge ship then came through the channel, signalling the reopening of the port.
On Monday night, ABC National News reported that protesters were within metres of the ship. MWM closely observed the events. When the ship began to move towards the harbour, all kayaks were inside the buoys marking the channel. Police occupied the area between the protesters and the ship. No kayaker moved forward.
A powerful visual message had been sent that the forces of the NSW state would be used to defend the interests of the big coal companies such as Whitehaven and Glencore rather than the NSW public.
By now police on horses were on the beach and watched as small squads of police marched through the crowd grabbing paddles. A little later this reporter was carrying a paddle through a car park well off the beach when a constable roughly seized it without warning from my hand.
When asked, Constable Pacey explained that I had breached the peace by being on water. I had not entered the water over the weekend.
Kids arrested too, in mass civil disobedience Those charged included 14 people under 18. After being released, they marched chanting back into the camp. A 16-year-old Newcastle student, Niamh Cush, told a crowd of fellow protesters before her arrest that as a young person, she would rather not be arrested but that the betrayal of the Albanese government left her with no choice.
“I’m here to voice the anger of my generation. The Albanese government claims they’re taking climate change seriously but they are completely and utterly failing us by approving polluting new coal and gas mines. See you out on the water today to block the coal ships!”
Each of those who chose to get arrested has their own story. They include environmental scientists, engineers, TAFE teachers, students, nurses and doctors, hospitality and retail workers, designers and media workers, activists who have retired, unionists, a mediator and a coal miner.
They came from across Australia — more than 200 came from Adelaide alone — and from many different backgrounds.
Behind those arrested stand volunteer groups of legal observers, arrestee support, lawyers, community care workers and a media team. Beside them stand hundreds of other volunteers who have cleaned portaloos, prepared three meals a day, washed dishes, welcomed and registered participants, organised camping spots and acted as marshals at pedestrian crossings.
Each and every one of them is playing an essential role in this campaign of mass civil disobedience.
Many participants said this huge collaborative effort is what inspired them and gave them hope, as much as did the protest itself.
Threat to democracy Today, the president of NSW Civil Liberties, Tim Roberts, said, “Paddling a kayak in the Port of Newcastle is not an offence, people do it every day safely without hundreds of police officers.
“A decision was made to protect the safe passage of the vessels over the protection of people exercising their democratic rights to protest.
“We are living in extraordinary times. Our democracy will not irrevocably be damaged in one fell swoop — it will be a slow bleed, a death by a thousand tranches of repressive legislation, and by thousands of arrests of people standing up in defence of their civil liberties.”
Australian Institute research shows that most Australians agree with the Council for Civil Liberties — with 71 percent polled, including a majority of all parties, believing that the right to protest should be enshrined in Federal legislation. It also included a majority across all ages and political parties.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is a fear of accelerating mass civil disobedience in the face of a climate crisis that frightens both the Federal and State governments and the police.
As temperatures rise Many of those protesting have already been directly affected by climbing temperatures in sweltering suburbs, raging bushfires and intense smoke, roaring floods and a loss of housing that has not been replaced, devastated forests, polluting coal mines and gas fields or rising seas in the Torres Strait in Northern Australia and Pacific Island countries.
Others have become profoundly concerned as they come to grips with climate science predictions and public health warnings.
In these circumstances, and as long as governments continue to enable the fossil fuel industry by approving more coal and gas projects that will add to the climate crisis, the number of people who decide they are morally obliged to take civil disobedience action will grow.
Rather than being impressed by politicians who cast them as disrupters, they will heed the call of Pacific leaders who this week declared the COP29 talks to be a “catastrophic failure” exposing their people to “escalating risks”.
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the professor of journalism at University of Technology Sydney (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 Rising Tide supporter, and is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Introduction The Asia-Pacific region presents some of the world’s most diverse and challenging terrains—from Indonesia’s sprawling archipelagos and Southeast Asia’s dense jungles to the Himalayas’ rugged peaks and Australia’s arid deserts. Maintaining reliable and secure communications across such remote landscapes has always been a formidable challenge. Spectra Group’s SlingShot™, a groundbreaking satellite radio communications system, […]
Australian defence budget is at a record high, but how that money will be spent, and on what, still provides challenges. Australia announced its 2024/25 federal budget in mid-May, allocating a record $36.8 billion (A$55.7 billion) to defence. The figure represented a 6.3 percent increase from last year, and included $11 billion (A$16.7 billion) for […]
The Australian government is being run ragged in various quarters. When ragged, such a beast is bound to seek a distraction. And what better than finding a vulnerable group, preferably children, to feel outraged and noble about?
The Albanese government, armed such problematic instruments as South Australia’s Children (Social Media Safety) Bill 2024, which will fine social media companies refusing to exclude children under the age of 14 from using their platforms, and a report by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French on the feasibility of such a move, is confident of restricting the use of social media by children across the country by imposing an age limit.
On November 21, the government boastfully declared in a media release that it had officially “introduced world-leading legislation to enforce a minimum age of 16 years for social media.” The proposed legislation, known as the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, is supposedly going to “deliver greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development.”
The proposed legislation made something of an international splash. NBC News, for instance, called the bill “one of the toughest in the world”, failing to note its absence of muscle. To that end, it remains thin on detail.
These laws constitute yet another effort to concentrate power and responsibilities best held by the citizenry in the hands of a bureaucratic-political class governed by paranoia and procedure. They are also intended to place the onus on social media platforms to place restrictions upon those under 16 years of age from having accounts.
The government openly admits as much, seemingly treating parents as irresponsible and weak (their consent in this is irrelevant), and children as permanently threatened by spoliation. “The law places the onus on social media platforms – not parents or young people – to take reasonable steps to ensure these protections are in place.” If the platforms do not comply, they risk fines of up to A$49.5 million.
As for the contentious matter of privacy, the prime minister and his communications minister are adamant. “It will contain robust privacy provisions, including requiring the platforms to ringfence and destroy any information collected to safeguard the personal information of all Australians.”
The drafters of the bill have also taken liberties on what is deemed appropriate to access. As the media release mentions, Australia’s youth will still “have continued access to messaging and online gaming, as well as access to services which are health and education related, like Headspace, Kids Helpline, and Google Classroom, and YouTube.”
This daft regime is based on the premise it will survive circumvention. Children, through guile and instinctive perseverance, will always find a way to access forbidden fruit. Indeed, as the Digital Industry Group Inc says, this “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges” may well steer children into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet”.
In May, documents uncovered under Freedom of Information by Guardian Australia identified that government wonks in the communications department were wondering if such a scheme was even viable. A document casting a sceptical eye over the use of age assurance technology was unequivocal: “No countries have implemented an age verification mandate without issue.”
Legal challenges have been launched in France and Germany against such measures. Circumvention has become a feature in various US states doing the same, using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
While this proposed legislation will prove ineffectual in achieving its intended purpose – here, protecting the prelapsarian state of childhood from ruin at the hands of wicked digital platforms – it will also leave the apparatus of hefty regulation. One can hardly take remarks coming from the absurdly named office of the eSafety Commissioner, currently occupied by the authoritarian-minded Julie Inman Grant, seriously in stating that “regulators like eSafety have to be nimble.” Restrictions, prohibitions, bans and censorship regimes are, in their implementation, never nimble.
For all that, even Inman Grant has reservations about some of the government’s assumptions, notably on the alleged link between social media and mental harm. The evidence for such a claim, she told BBC Radio 5 Live, “is not settled at all”. Indeed, certain vulnerable groups – she mentions LGBTQ+ and First Nations cohorts in particular – “feel more themselves online than they do in the real world”. Why not, she suggests, teach children to use online platforms more safely? Children, she analogises, should be taught how to swim, rather than being banned from swimming itself. Instruct the young to swim; don’t ringfence the sea.
Rather appositely, Lucas Lane, at 15 something of an entrepreneur selling boys nail polish via the online business Glossy Boys, told the BBC that the proposed ban “destroys… my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen.”
Already holed without even getting out of port, this bill will serve another, insidious purpose. While easily dismissed as having a stunted moral conscience, Elon Musk, who owns X Corp, is hard to fault in having certain suspicions about these draft rules. “Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians,” he wrote to a post from Albanese. One, unfortunately, among several.
There is something enormously satisfying about seeing those in the war racket worry that their assumptions on conflict have been upended. There they were, happily funding, planning and preparing to battle against threats imagined or otherwise, and there comes Donald Trump, malice and petulance combined, to pull the rug from under them again.
What is fascinating about the return of Trump to the White House is that critics think his next round of potentially rowdy occupancy is going to encourage, rather than discourage war. Conflict may be the inadvertent consequence of any number of unilateral policies Trump might pursue, but they do not tally with his anti-war platform. Whatever can be said about his adolescent demagogic tendencies, a love of war is curiously absent from the complement. A tendency to predictable unpredictability, however, is.
The whole assessment also utterly misunderstands the premise that the foolishly menacing trilateral alliance of AUKUS is, by its nature, a pact for the making of war. This agreement between Australia, the UK and the US can hardly be dignified as some peaceful, unprovocative enterprise fashioned to preserve security. To that end, President Joe Biden should shoulder a considerable amount of the blame for destabilising the region. But instead, we are getting some rather streaky commentary from the security wonks in Australia. Trump spells, in the pessimistic words of Nick Bisley from La Trobe University, “uncertainty about just what direction the US will go”. His policies might, for instance, “badly destabilise Asia” and imperil the AUKUS, specifically on the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy. On the last point, we can only hope.
The Australians, being willing and unquestioning satellites of US power, have tried to pretend that a change of the guard in the White House will not doom the pact. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed a “great deal of confidence” that things would not change under the new administration, seeing as AUKUS enjoyed bipartisan support.
Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is also of the view that AUKUS will survive into the Trump administration as it “strengthens all three countries’ ability to deter threats, and it grows the defence industrial base and creates jobs in all three countries”.
Another former ambassador to Washington, Arthur Sinodinos, who also occupies the role of AUKUS forum co-chair, has pitched the viability of the trilateral pact in such a way as to make it more appealing to Trump. Without any trace of humour, he suggests that tech oligarch Elon Musk oversee matters if needed. “If Musk can deliver AUKUS, we should put Musk in charge of AUKUS, and I’m not joking, if new thinking is needed to get this done,” advises the deluded Sinodinos.
The reasoning offered on this is, to put it mildly, peculiar. As co-head of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, it is hoped, will apply “business principles” and “new thinking”. If the Pentagon can “reform supply chains, logistics, procurement rules, in a way that means there’s speed to market, we get minimum viable capability sooner, rather than later”.
These doltish assessments from Sinodinos are blatantly ignorant of the fact the defence industry is never efficient. Nor do they detract from the key premise of the arrangements. Certainly, if an anti-China focus is what you are focusing on – and AUKUS, centrally and evidently, is an anti-China agreement pure and simple – there would be little reason for Trump to tinker with its central tenets. For one, he is hankering for an even deeper trade war with Beijing. Why not also harry the Chinese with a provocative instrument, daft as it is, that entails militarising Australia and garrisoning it for any future conflict that might arise?
Whatever the case, AUKUS has always been contingent on the interests of one power. Congress has long signalled that US defence interests come first, including whether Australia should receive any Virginian class submarines to begin with. Trump would hardly disagree here. “Trump’s decisions at each phase of AUKUS cooperation will be shaped by zero-sum balance sheets of US interest,” suggests Alice Nason of the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre rather tritely.
If Trump be so transactional, he has an excellent example of a country utterly willing to give everything to US security, thereby improving the deal from the side of Washington’s military-industrial complex. If there was one lingering, pathological complaint he had about Washington’s NATO allies, it was always that they were not doing enough to ease the burdens of US defence. They stalled on defence budgets; they quibbled on various targets on recruitment.
This can hardly be said of Canberra. Australia’s government has abandoned all pretence of resistance, measure or judgment, outrageously willing to underwrite the US imperium in any of its needs in countering China, raiding the treasury of taxpayer funds to the tune of a figure that will, eventually, exceed A$368 billion. Rudd openly acknowledges that Australian money is directly “investing into the US submarine industrial base to expand the capacity of their shipyards.” It would be silly to prevent this continuing windfall. It may well be that aspect that ends up convincing Trump that AUKUS is worth keeping. Why get rid of willing servitors of such dim tendency when they are so willing to please you with cash and compliments?
The Australian Ministry of Defense announced that the Army has taken received the first delivery of M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks from General Dynamics Land Systems. The M1A2 SEPv3 is the most recent iteration of the Abrams MBT developed for the US Army. These forty-six tanks are the initial batch of seventy-five that were […]
Spectra Group, the specialist provider of secure voice, data and satellite communications systems is proud to announce the launch of Spectra Group (Australia) at MilCIS 2024 (12-14 Nov) which will be in booth B24 at the National Convention Centre, Canberra. This marks a significant expansion for Spectra Group as it enhances its ability to serve […]
Australia will conduct a series of hypersonic vehicle tests with its AUKUS partners under a new agreement designed to accelerate the development of the dual-use technology. The agreement, announced on Tuesday, will see Australia work with the United State and United Kingdom on as many as six “trilateral flight test campaigns” at a cost of…
An alleged plot involving firearms and threatening the life of New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens when held hostage in Papua this year is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police.
The case involves “advancing a political cause by the separation of West Papua from Indonesia . . . with the intention of coercing by intimidation the governments of New Zealand and Indonesia”.
Named in the AFP search warrant seen by MWM is research scholar Julian King, 63, who has studied and written extensively about West Papuan affairs.
He has told others his home in Coffs Harbour, Queensland, was raided violently earlier this month by police using a stun grenade and smashing a door.
During the search, the police seized phones, computers and documents about alleged contacts with the West Papua rebel group Organisasi Papua Merdeka, OPM (Free Papua Organisation) and a bid to seek weapons and ammunition.
However, no arrests are understood to have been made or charges laid.
King, a former geologist and now a PhD student at Wollongong University, has been studying Papuan reaction to the Indonesian takeover since 1963. He has written in a research paper titled “A soul divided: The UN’s misconduct over West Papua” that West Papuans:
‘live under a military dictatorship described by legal scholars and human rights advocates as systemic terror and alleged genocide.’
Also named in the warrant alongside King is Amatus Dounemee Douw, confirmed by MWM contacts to be Australian citizen Akouboo Amatus Douw, who chairs the West Papua Diplomatic and Foreign Affairs Council, an NGO that states it seeks to settle disputes peacefully.
Risk to Australia-Indonesia relations The allegations threaten to fragment relations between Indonesia and Australia.
It is widely believed that human rights activists and church organisations are helping Papuan dissidents despite Canberra’s regular insistence that it officially backs Jakarta.
Earlier this year, Deputy PM Richard Marles publicly stressed: “We, Australia, fully recognise Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty. We do not endorse any independence movement.”
When seized by armed OPM pro-independence fighters in February last year, Mehrtens was flying a light plane for an Indonesian transport company.
He was released unharmed in September after being held for 593 days by the West Papua National Liberation Army (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional Papua Barat – TPNPB), the military wing of the OPM.
AFP is investigating alleged firearms plot which threatened the life of New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens when held hostage in West Papua this year #auspolhttps://t.co/8ZXFIB1fre
Designated ‘terrorist’ group, journalists banned OPM is designated as a terrorist organisation in Indonesia but isn’t on the Australian list of proscribed groups. Jakarta bans foreign journalists from Papua, so little impartial information is reported.
After Mehrtens was freed, TPNPB spokesman Sebby Sambom alleged that a local politician had paid a bribe, a charge denied by the NZ government.
However, West Papua Action Aotearoa spokesperson Catherine Delahunty told Radio NZ the bribe was “an internal political situation that has nothing to do with our government’s negotiations.”
Sambom, who has spent time in Indonesian jails for taking part in demonstrations, now operates out of adjacent Papua New Guinea — a separate independent country.
Australia was largely absent from the talks to free Mehrtens that were handled by NZ diplomats and the Indonesian military. The AFP’s current involvement raises the worry that information garnered under the search warrants will show the Indonesian government where the Kiwi was hidden so that locations can be attacked from the air.
At one stage during his captivity, Mehrtens appealed to the Indonesian military not to bomb villages.
It is believed Mehrtens was held in Nduga, a district with the lowest development index in the Republic, a measure of how citizens can access education, health, and income. Yet Papua is the richest province in the archipelago — the Grasberg mine is the world’s biggest deposit of gold and copper.
OPM was founded in December 1963 as a spiritual movement rejecting development while blending traditional and Christian beliefs. It then started working with international human rights agencies for support.
Indigenous Papuans are mainly Christian, while almost 90 percent of Indonesians follow Islam.
Chief independence lobbyist Benny Wenda lives in exile in Oxford. In 2003 he was given political asylum by the UK government after fleeing from an Indonesian jail. He has addressed the UN and European and British Parliaments, but Jakarta has so far resisted international pressure to allow any form of self-determination.
Questions for new President Prabowo Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto is in the UK this week, where Papuans have been drumming up opposition to the official visit. In a statement, Wenda said:
‘Prabowo has also restarted the transmigration settlement programme that has made us a minority in our own land.’
“For West Papuans, the ghost of (second president) Suharto has returned — (his) New Order regime still exists, it has just changed its clothes.”
Pleas for recognition of Papuan’s concerns get minimal backing in Indonesia; fears of balkanisation and Western nations taking over a splintered country are well entrenched in the 17,000-island archipelago of 1300 ethnic groups where “unity” is considered the Republic’s foundation stone.
Duncan Graham has a Walkley Award, two Human Rights Commission awards and other prizes for his radio, TV and print journalism in Australia. He now lives in Indonesia. He has been an occasional contributor to Asia Pacific Report and this article was first published by Michael West Media.
Two more United Nations committee resolutions. Both concerning the conduct of Israel past and current. While disease, hunger and death continue to stalk the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank remains under the thick thumb of occupation, deliberations in foreign fora continue to take place about how to address this hideous state of affairs. While these international matters can often seem like insipid gestures marked by ineffectual chatter, they are increasingly bulking a file that is making Israel more isolated than ever. And this is not an isolation of virtue or admiration.
On November 13, the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) of the UN approved two resolutions. The first focused on requesting that Israel assume responsibility for prompt and adequate compensation to Lebanon and any associated countries, including Syria, affected by an oil slick on their shores arising from the destruction of storage tanks near the Lebanese Jiyah electric power plant. The strike took place in July 2006 during Israel’s previous war against Hezbollah, resulting in, to quote the words of Lebanon’s then Environment Ministry director general Berge Hatjian, “a catastrophe of the highest order for a country as small as Lebanon”. According to Lebanon’s UN representative, the damage arising from the oil spill had hampered the country’s efforts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.
Israel’s representative gruffly rejected the premise of the resolution, which received 160 votes in its favour, citing the usual argument that it has been unfairly targeted. Other current adversaries – here, the Houthis, who had been attacking ships in international waters – had been left unscrutinised by the committee. The issue of environmental damage had been appropriated “as a political weapon against Israel”.
The second resolution, introduced by the Ugandan representative, was of particular interest to the Palestinians. Entitled “Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources”, it expressed pointed concerns about Israel’s continued efforts to exercise, with brute force, control over the territories. There was concern for “the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967”. Ditto the “extensive destruction by Israel […] of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Territory” and “widespread destruction” inflicted upon “vital infrastructure, including water pipelines, sewage networks and electricity networks” in those territories.
Concerns also abounded about unexploded ordnance, a situation that despoiled the environment while hampering reconstruction, and the “chronic energy shortage in the Gaza Strip and its detrimental impact on the operation of water and sanitation facilities”. The Israeli settlements come in for special mention, given their “detrimental impact on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, including the destruction of orchards and crops and the seizure of the water wells by Israeli settlers, and the dire socioeconomic consequences in this regard”.
There are also stern remarks about needing to respect and preserve “the territory unity, contiguity and integrity of all Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, a situation increasingly compromised by the rampant, unchecked zealotry of thuggish Israeli settlers, emboldened by lawmakers and authorities.
The vote on this occasion – 158 in favour – was unusual for featuring a number of countries that would normally be more guarded in adding their names, notably in the context of Palestinian sovereignty. Their mantra is that backing an initiative openly favouring Palestinian self-determination over any specific subject would do little to advance the broader goals of the peace process in the absence of Israeli participation.
Australia, for instance, backed the resolution, despite opposition from the United States and Canada. It marked the first time the country had favoured a “permanent sovereignty” resolution since being introduced in a resolution. This was done despite disappointment by the Australian delegation that the resolution made no reference to other participants in the conflict such as Hezbollah. A spokesperson for Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong stated that the vote reflected international concerns about Israel’s “ongoing settlement activity, land dispossession, demolitions and settler violence against Palestinians”. Such conduct undermined “stability and prospects for a two-state solution.”
As for Israel’s firmest sponsor in arms, inexplicable good will and dubious legal padding, the words “Palestinian” and “sovereignty” continued to grate. The fiction of equality and parity between Israel and the Palestinians, a device long used to snuff out the independent aspirations of the latter, had to be maintained.
In remarks made by Nicholas Koval of the US Mission to the UN, it was clear that Washington was “disappointed that this body has again taken up this unbalanced resolution that is unfairly critical of Israel, demonstrating a clear and persistent institutional bias directed against one member state.” The resolution, in its “one-sided” way, would not advance peace. “Not when they ignore the facts on the ground.”
While Koval is not wrong that the claimed facts in these resolutions are often matters of conceit, illusion and even omission, the events unfolding since October last year have shown, in their biblical ferocity, that the Palestinians are no longer merely subjects of derision by the Israeli state. They are to be subjugated, preferably by some international authority that will guard against any future claims to autonomy. Their vetted leaders are to be treated as amenable collaborators, happy to yield territory that Israel has no right to.
Eventually, it is hoped by the likes of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, that the Palestinian problem will vanish before forcible annexation, erasure and eviction. At the very least, resolutions such as those passed on November 14 provide some record of resistance, however seemingly remote, against the historical amnesia that governs Israeli Palestinian relations.
![PNG police commissioner David Manning (center) flanked by Vanuatu Police Commissioner Robson Iavro (left), Australian Federal Police commissioner Reece Kershaw (2nd right) and Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus at the PPI launch, pictured on Dec. 10, 2024. [Stefan Armbruster/BenarNews]](https://media.rnztools.nz/rnz/image/upload/s--VKcmxE_e--/ar_16:10,c_fill,f_auto,g_auto,q_auto,w_1050/v1733947676/4KFAQQU_papacific_policing_initiative_2_jpeg?_a=BACCd2AD)
![Police ministers and chiefs from across the Pacific attended the launch of the PPI’s Pinkenba Hub, pictured on Dec. 10, 2024. [Stefan Armbruster/BenarNews]](https://media.rnztools.nz/rnz/image/upload/s--Zzq6dq4l--/ar_16:10,c_fill,f_auto,g_auto,q_auto,w_1050/v1733947676/4KFAQQU_papacific_policing_initiative_1_jpeg?_a=BACCd2AD)
called for climate justice, self-determination & accountability
talks of climate leadership but argues against binding human rights
exposed polluters hiding behind the 
Eye witnesses say 24 protestors were arrested for protesting at parliament today, demanding the Albanese Government stop new coal. 
Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz)