radiofree.asia

Category: Business

  • Another coal project. BHP spins mine approval as pumped hydro ‘coal lakes’

    Mt Arthur coal mine. Image BHP

    The government has approved a giant coal project, the extension of Australia’s biggest coal mine, BHP’s Mt Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley. BHP is spinning it as pumped hydro. Michael West reports.

    Besides putting energy consumers on the hook for funding Eraring, extending Australia’s biggest biggest coal-fired power station, the government has approved BHP extending the biggest coal mine in Australia, Mt Arthur, and BHP has spun it as a green deal.

    “BHP has partnered with renewable energy and infrastructure company ACCIONA Energía to explore the development of a pumped hydro energy storage project at Mt Arthur Coal.

    “As part of the planned pathway for closure, BHP has gained approval from the NSW Government to extend mining activities at Mt Arthur Coal for an additional four years, from July 2026 to June 2030.”

    However, technical experts have said the larger pumped hydro scheme is not feasible, telling MWM the Hunter Valley ‘coal to lakes’ idea faced immense regulatory challenges; for a start, the environmental and First Nations’ approvals which would be required to flood the area, potentially putting indigenous heritage under water.

    BHP had been canvassing local communities with the idea that the pumped hydro project would be part of a larger ‘coal to lakes’ project in line with the transformation of the former coal mine region in East Germany. More on this later.

    Labor’s hat-trick: three coal mine approvals in one day

    Mt Arthur Coal, the largest thermal coal mine in Australia, has been granted the four year extension by the state and federal governments. Adjacently, the recently held NSW Inquiry into Productive & Beneficial Land Use in Mining has concluded with its key recommendations which show the mining behemoth has bulldozed its way through the ‘red tape’ to continue to earn huge revenues for at least another 4 years.

    Detailed within the approval are understood to be ‘tight expectations’ outlined by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) which has been working with BHP, other agencies and the local community, in the lead up to the approval announced yesterday.

    According to a BHP source, the approval “isn’t really a surprise considering the necessity for a sustainable transition and the time needed to balance up the energy grid, as Labor’s renewables charge continues throughout regional Australia.

    “While many mine workers will be pleased with the news, blowback will be expected from various lobby and stakeholder groups who have been contesting the extension for a number of years. 

    “This does not look to be the agencies involved in the approval as even common lingo is now being adopted for key decision makers, such as Tony Chappel (CEO Environment Protection Authority). Terrific to see BHP and state government collaborating and working as one.

    A done deal already?

    Interestingly, Mt Arthur signed a 5 year agreement with Thiess prior to the modification, the NSW Inquiry into Production & Beneficial Post Mining Land Use concluded recently with key enabling recommendations to progress BHP’s ambition, and NSW Minister Courtney Houssos visited the Mt Arthur site in May 2023 and released a press release that aligned perfectly with the recent recommendations coming out of the Labor led inquiry.  

    Also the scuttlebutt, said the BHP source, around the announcement is that feasibility study of a Pumped Hydro future land form is being progressed. “If we cast your minds back to the James Joseph whistleblower release (Dec 2024), technical experts were quoted that pumped hydro was found to be ‘not feasible’. So, what’s changed?

    While the heat continues to ratchet up around the government protecting whistleblowers, Joseph was recently informed that despite BHP failing to report his medical injury (PTSD due to whistleblower retaliation), BHP would be let off the hook with a ‘formal caution’.

    Mr Joseph’s injury investigation went for 13 months and according to sources he is now being denied any investigation materials under the Freedom of Information laws, saying that if it were to be released, others might be reluctant to participate in safety investigations in the future. 

    According to the same sources, it is understood that Mr Joseph was informed by the NSW Resources Regulator (who also report up to Minister Houssos and the former EPA Secretary Georgina Beattie), that despite it being likely of a prosecution, it would cost the state too much money to ‘hold them to account’ all for “an insignificant fine”.

    Joseph continues to allege BHP continues its retaliation against him, including the company holding on to his personal entitlements. The company has also refused to comment over revelations in these pages of a wage theft scandal which affected thousands of coal workers, including some of the 26,000 former and current employees of Mt Arthur.

    Coal to lakes?

    Further to the feasibility of pumped hydro at Mr Arthur, ecologist and water scientist Peter Hughes told MWM earlier this year the Lakes proposal was a “pipe-dream”, at least the recreational part. 

    “With the Lakes proposal and the use of the mine voids, I’ve reviewed at least 4 proposals and every few years the NSW Minerals Council does a report. There is no new data. I’ve seen proposals that all of the mine voids can be used. It’s not viable for any recreational use and never will be.

    “The groundwater in the Hunter is highly saline and very high in heavy metals. It’s highly toxic for animals. I’ve written letters to them explaining this to them. In Germany it is different. The groundwater must be much cleaner, and there’s high rainfall.

    The BHP whistleblower and the secretive plan to turn Hunter Valley coal into lakes

     

    Not only do experts believe the community consultation by BHP in relation to pumped hydro and the ‘coal lakes’ proposal has been poor but they say a pumped hydro project is unlikely to work on a technical basis.

    Peter Hughes, who worked 25 years with the NSW EPA and done Environmental Impact assessments on every coal mine in the Hunter Valley and written most of the Environment Protection Licences.

    “There is potential for pumped hydro. There was a CSIRO report into the potential for pumped hydro which found it plausible. All you need is a hill more than 100m high. We’ve put the kibosh on the recreational proposal at least four times. Pumped hydro is potentially viable but they have a major problem with it – the water quality. The water is highly corrosive which would clog up the machinery. So technically I think it is unlikely.

    “I would say they are trying it on again. They have probably submitted again to the EPA but it’s a dog with fleas.”

    To ever get it approved, says Hughes, they would have to get DA consent under EP&A Act, an Environment Protection Licence from the EPA, Water Access Licenses under Water Management Act, and possibly Aboriginal relic destruction licences from NPWS.

    To make the water quality viable, what they would have to do is put it through a purification plant before they pump it back up the hill to the turbine. We are talking about a reverse osmosis desalination plant which is extremely expensive and power hungry. It could eat up the majority of the power which the pumped hydro plant is producing.

    A Snowy job

    The sheer scale of the proposed transition deal makes it a sensitive issue. If you use Snowy Hydro as an example, that’s already at $12B from original price estimates of $2B.

    Former HR executive at Mt Arthur James Joseph knew in April 2023 that confidential pumped hydro talks were underway. “I was accountable for shaping the NSW workforce strategy as HR manager and I was kept in the dark. Now I know why they never wanted to have this conversation or share the information with myself and other managers, because what they were doing was questionable – amounting potentially to competition breaches.”

    Then there is the political sensitivity. China is at the vanguard of pumped hydro technology yet the political implications of doing such a large deal with the Chinese, let alone any foreign group, are significant. China already has its foot on a lot of assets in the Hunter Valley including mining and wineries.

    Same Job, Lame Pay: BHP and the black coal wage swindle

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • How Trump’s war on climate and equity is impacting ‘woke investing’

    Environmental-, social-, and governance-related shareholder proposals are down 34 percent this year as the Trump administration galvanizes the movement against “woke investing,” according to an annual report by the shareholder advocacy groups As You Sow and Proxy Impact.

    The report counted 355 such proposals as of February 21, compared to 536 proposals filed by the same time last year. Wariness over anticipated changes at the Securities and Exchange Commission contributed to the decline, the authors said, as many investors opted to postpone resolutions until it became clear whether they would be blocked by new SEC leadership.

    “We’re a little bit in a pause mode,” said Andy Behar, As You Sow’s CEO. He said a “right-wing crusade” against socially responsible investing has left shareholders in limbo as they figure out how to navigate the shifting political climate. 

    The term ESG — shorthand for an investment approach that prioritizes environmental, social, and governance issues — dates to 2004 and doesn’t have a fixed definition. Generally, it represents the idea that investors should buy shares in companies that factor social and environmental issues into their decision-making on the theory that such companies are more likely to prosper in the long run.

    Investors promote ESG principles via shareholder resolutions, brief proposals that are put up for a vote by everyone who owns stock in a company during their annual meeting. These resolutions typically ask a company to issue a report about how some aspect of its operations, like its greenhouse gas emissions, may affect the company’s future profitability. All of the shareholder proposals submitted to a company during a given year are compiled onto a “proxy statement,” and the time of year when voting occurs — usually around May — is called proxy season. 

    Progressive critics of ESG have argued that the concept is so vague as to be meaningless, and that exaggerated claims of corporate responsibility are a distraction from the systemic reforms needed to address societal problems. But the more aggressive criticism has come from the political right, which sees corporate diversity and environmental policies as “woke” interference with capitalism.

    These criticisms escalated during the Biden administration. In 2022, red-state regulators began naming and shaming financial institutions for an alleged “boycott” of fossil fuels companies and investigating big banks for their ESG practices. Last year, 17 red states passed legislation restricting corporate decision-making based on ESG priorities, and institutional investors like BlackRock grew more tepid in their support for ESG proposals. 

    Donald Trump looks to the left, with half of his face in shadow.
    President Donald Trump speaks to the media during a visit to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s broad attacks on climate policy and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have further chilled ESG efforts, inspiring several major banks to withdraw from a climate initiative in the lead-up to Inauguration Day.

    Experts quoted in the As You Sow and Proxy Impact report said government attempts to limit ESG investing amount to an attack on shareholders’ right to make policy recommendations through proxy voting, guaranteed under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. “An anti-shareholder movement — often mislabeled as ‘anti-ESG’ — is silencing the voice of everyday investors in the U.S.,” reads one statement from Rick Alexander, CEO of the nonprofit The Shareholder Commons.

    Behar said ESG opponents are unduly manipulating the market. “They don’t like capitalism, they don’t like free markets, they don’t like democracy,” he said. “This is problematic for all the shareholders who are trying to keep our companies proceeding into the future.”

    Trump’s reelection has also prompted changes at the SEC, the federal agency charged with protecting investors and enforcing laws against market manipulation. It normally has five commissioners, no more than three of whom may belong to the same political party, but two of its Democratic members voluntarily stepped down after Trump was elected, and their seats are currently vacant. Two of the three sitting commissioners — one Republican and one Democrat — were nominated by Trump. The third, a Republican, was nominated by former president Joe Biden.

    In February — after the majority of the ESG shareholder resolutions included in the report had been filed — the SEC announced two new policies that complicated these resolutions and could make it more difficult to file resolutions next year. First, the agency placed tighter deadlines and more onerous reporting requirements on large investors asking companies to, for example, disclose their climate risks or boost gender equality on their boards. 

    Second, the SEC made it easier for companies to exclude shareholder proposals from their proxy statements if those proposals were deemed not “significantly related” to their business. The SEC gave companies an extra opportunity to convince regulators to allow specific proposals to be excluded on the basis of this new policy, but it has not afforded investors a similar opportunity for additional explanation.

    “It was clearly a biased decision stacked against shareholders,” said Michael Passoff, CEO of Proxy Impact and a co-author of the report.

    In light of the growing anti-ESG movement, Behar said some companies have grown more willing to engage in dialogue with investors, perhaps hoping to avoid the publicity generated by a proxy vote. This, he said, is how shareholder advocates prefer to make change — by persuading companies to take action voluntarily in exchange for the withdrawal of a proposal. According to the report, 22 percent of ESG-related shareholder proposals were withdrawn as of February 21, compared to 7.7 percent at a similar time in 2024, suggesting that companies were negotiating behind the scenes with investors.

    The side of a building, with the words Securities and Exchange Commission on it.
    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission building in Washington, D.C. Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    However, companies have also been emboldened to ignore shareholder proposals. One way to measure this is by looking at the number of “no-action” requests prompted by shareholder resolutions. These are requests companies make to the SEC asking for confirmation that the agency will not take action against them if they omit a proposal from their proxy statements. Even with fewer proposals filed as of early March this year, 221 had prompted no-action requests, compared to just 94 around the same time last year.

    While the As You Sow and Proxy Impact report identified fewer climate- and environment-related shareholder proposals filed this season, the nature of those that were filed did not change much from previous years. The largest chunk ask companies for information about the decarbonization strategies or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some new ones ask financial institutions to set investment ratio targets for clean energy infrastructure compared to fossil fuels; for insurance companies to report and reduce the climate pollution associated with their underwriting; and for mining companies to disclose their policies for deep-sea mining, in the absence of international rules governing this activity. 

    Frances Fairhead-Stanova, a shareholder advocate for the environmentally responsible mutual fund Green Century Capital Management, said the As You Sow and Proxy Impact report raises concerns that affect many shareholders. However, she reported that the presidential election results and anticipated changes at the SEC did not prompt her organization to file fewer resolutions. She noticed more no-action requests, but said it’s unclear whether the SEC will grant a greater proportion of them compared to previous years.

    So far, Green Century has withdrawn 6 of the 27 climate- and environment-related resolutions it filed, in exchange for some sort of action or reporting. Starbucks, for example, agreed to share more information about its transition to reusable cups and to remove any recycling labels it deems misleading, following an internal assessment. TD Bank agreed to an audit of its board of governance policies with the aim of improving climate risk management.

    Five companies filed no-action requests, and the SEC has rejected two of these. The others are still pending.

    “We’re not panicked about any changes,” Fairhead-Stanova said. “We are just continuing to do our work.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Trump’s war on climate and equity is impacting ‘woke investing’ on Apr 9, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ‘Not an extension of Australia’ – Trump’s tariffs ‘reinforces’ Norfolk Island’s independence hopes

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Norfolk Island sees its United States tariff as an acknowledgment of independence from Australia.

    Norfolk Island, despite being an Australian territory, has been included on Trump’s tariff list.

    The territory has been given a 29 percent tariff, despite Australia getting only 10 percent.

    It is home to just over 2000 people, sitting between New Zealand and Australia in the South Pacific

    The islands’ Chamber of Commerce said the decision by the US “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation” and Norfolk Island not being part of Australia.

    “The classification of Norfolk Island as distinct from Australia in this tariff decision reinforces what the Norfolk Island community has long asserted: Norfolk Island is not an extension of Australia.”

    Norfolk Island previously had a significant level of autonomy from Australia, but was absorbed directly into the country’s local government system in 2015.

    Norfolk Islanders angered
    The move angered many Norfolk Island people and inspired a number of campaigns, including appeals to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, by groups wishing to re-establish a measure of their autonomy, or to sue for independence.

    The Chamber of Commerce has taken the tariff as a chance to reemphasis the islands’ call for independence, including, “restoration of economic rights” and exclusive access to its exclusive economic zone.

    The statement said Norfolk Island is a “sovereign nation [and] must have the ability to engage directly with international trade partners rather than through Australian officials who do not represent Norfolk Island’s interests”.

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters yesterday: “Norfolk Island has got a 29 percent tariff. I’m not quite sure that Norfolk Island, with respect to it, is a trade competitor with the giant economy of the United States.”

    “But that just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on Earth is safe from this.”

    The base tariff of 10 percent is also included for Tokelau, a non-self-governing territory of New Zealand, with a population of only about 1500 people living on the atoll islands.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade
    US President Donald Trump’s global tariffs . . . “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation.” Image: Getty/The Conversation

    US ‘don’t really understand’, says PANG
    Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) deputy coordinator Adam Wolfenden said he did not understand why Norfolk Island and Tokelau were added to the tariff list.

    “I think this reflects the approach that’s been taken, which seems very rushed and very divorced from a common sense approach,” Wolfenden said.

    “The inclusion of these territories, to me, is indicative that they don’t really understand what they’re doing.”

    In the Pacific, Fiji is set to be charged the most at 32 percent.

    Nauru has been slapped with a 30 percent tariff, Vanuatu 22 percent, and other Pacific nations were given the 10 percent base tariff.

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


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with US hit hardest

    ANALYSIS: By Niven Winchester, Auckland University of Technology

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10 percent. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46 percent), Thailand (36 percent), China (34 percent), Indonesia (32 percent), Taiwan (32 percent) and Switzerland (31 percent).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20 percent tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54 percent. Countries assigned 10 percent tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25 percent tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation
    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools — known as “computable general equilibrium models” — are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45 percent). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24 percent) and Canada (1.65 percent) as these nations ship more than 75 percent of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99 percent) and Switzerland (0.32 percent).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29 percent) and Brazil (0.28 percent) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43 percent). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation
    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49 percent) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.The Conversation

    Dr Niven Winchester is professor of economics, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Fiji slapped with Trump’s highest tariffs among Pacific countries

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Although New Zealand and Australia seem to have escaped the worst of Donald Trump’s latest tariffs, some Pacific Islands stand to be hit hard — including a few that aren’t even “countries”.

    The US will impose a base tariff of 10 percent on all foreign imports, with rates between 20 and 50 percent for countries judged to have major tariffs on US goods.

    In the Pacific, Fiji is set to be charged the most at 32 percent, the US claiming this was a reciprocal tariff for the island nation imposing a 63 percent tariff on it.

    Nauru, one of the smallest nations in the world, has been slapped with a 30 percent tariff, the US claimed they are imposing a 59 percent tariff.

    Vanuatu will be given a 22 percent tariff.

    Norfolk Island, which is an Australian territory, has been given a 29 percent tariff, this is despite Australia getting only 10 percent.

    Most other Pacific nations were given the 10 percent base tariff.

    This included Tokelau, despite it being a non-self-governing territory of New Zealand, with a population of only about 1500 people living on the atoll islands.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Reeves says hasty response to Trump tariffs could put ‘prize’ of economic deal at risk – UK politics live

    Chancellor says UK will respond calmly to US tariffs as Keir Starmer attempts to play down fears of trade war

    There will be two urgent questions in the Commons after PMQs. At around 12.30pm a Foreign Office minister will respond to a question from Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, about the Chagos Islands. And then another Foreign Office minister (or the same one?) will reply to a UQ from the Green co-leader Carla Denyer about Gaza.

    After that Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, will make a statement about nursery provision.

    With new US tariffs coming, Welsh businesses face even more uncertainty.

    The UK must make a strategic decision: with 58.6% of Welsh exports going to the EU, we must provide stable access to European markets by rejoining the single market and customs union, allowing us to stand up to Trump’s reckless moves.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Companies used to tout their climate plans. Under Trump, they’ve gone quiet.

    Just a few years ago, pledges to tackle climate change were a staple of corporate PR. Amazon trumpeted its climate pledge and stamped it on the name of Seattle’s biggest arena. Walmart promised to slash a gigaton of carbon emissions from its supply chain, and the world’s largest money manager, BlackRock, with its $11 trillion in investments, pressured companies to come up with a plan to zero out their emissions by 2050.

    Now, many corporations are avoiding the subject altogether. During earnings calls, mentions of many well-known terms related to the climate are down 76 percent compared to three years ago, according to a recent analysis of S&P 500 companies by Bloomberg. The sharpest declines came from financial firms and consumer discretionary companies, the category for those offering optional purchases, like Starbucks and Airbnb. 

    The hesitancy to talk about climate change — sometimes called “greenhushing” — could decrease pressure on the big corporate polluters that have been slow to cut their emissions. The trend has been linked to a growing backlash against sustainable investing, as well as a shifting political landscape with President Donald Trump’s second term underway. “I think large companies in particular today are very, very cautious,” said Hortense Bioy, the head of sustainable investing research for Morningstar, a financial services firm.

    Companies have been caught in a tug-of-war: On one hand, investors are pressuring them to be serious about the risks of climate change to their business. On the other, the mention of any word related to so-called ESG — the polarizing acronym that refers to “environmental, social, and governance” investing — threatens blowback from the Trump administration. The way to thread the needle, experts suggest, is to stay away from flashpoints like ESG and talk specifically about the financial risks that the warming planet poses to companies.

    John Marshall, the CEO of the Potential Energy Coalition, a nonpartisan marketing firm focused on climate action, says that silence isn’t a winning strategy. “We do not think that voters or consumers are at all impressed, regardless of their political stripes, by taking the concept of climate change out of any language,” Marshall said. 

    His research shows that investors and the public want companies to talk about climate change — as an investment risk, not a matter of morality. According to a Potential Energy report from last September, 3 in 4 Americans surveyed think companies have a responsibility to limit their impact on the climate. What’s more, roughly 9 in 10 U.S. retail investors want companies to reduce emissions and prepare for the ways increasingly unpredictable weather could lead to risks like supply chain disruptions and rising insurance costs.

    The first signs of greenhushing appeared in 2023, when the Swiss consultancy South Pole found that a quarter of large companies around the world had decided not to publicize their progress on climate targets. The reason, South Pole later found, was that companies wanted to avoid the legal risks that came with high-profile pledges. It was a response to countries crafting new laws against “greenwashing,” the term for deceptive environmental advertising.

    At the same time, financial institutions were already dealing with the backlash against ESG, which heated up in 2022. Lawsuits targeted asset managers, pension funds, and federal agencies, claiming that “woke capitalism” was putting politics over financial interests. Red states including Florida and Texas pulled billions in state funds out of BlackRock and other ESG-friendly firms. BlackRock, which in 2021 had supported almost half of shareholder proposals to address environmental and social issues, pulled a U-turn. Between July 2023 and June 2024, it only backed 4 percent of them.

    “They were too visible and too vocal about what they were doing in that space,” Bioy said. She expects that companies with big climate plans may now have to disclose the opposition to ESG as a risk in their annual reports. That sense of caution is showing up in the markets, too: Over the last two years, there has been more money leaving sustainable funds in the U.S. than what’s coming in, according to Morningstar’s research. 

    Bioy suspects that trend still has room to run, given Trump’s hostility to climate action. Already, corporations including Apple, Walmart, and Siemens have stepped away from the climate coalition that formed during Trump’s first term. Bioy pointed to the guidance circulating in government organizations warning against using terms like “pollution,” “clean energy,” and “climate science.” “Companies that do business with the administration or any state organization, they will be careful not to use those terms,” Bioy said.

    In the past, some companies have used language around climate change that embraced a moral framing, such as “do the right thing.” But most people don’t think that’s the province of what businesses should be doing, Marshall said. Two-thirds of Americans believe that businesses should avoid taking a stance on political issues, according to his firm’s research. The moral framing provokes backlash because it feels like “forcing an idea on somebody,” Marshall said. “We have seen it’s much more effective to have language in the business community that’s about money and reality.”

    It raises the broader question of how regular people should talk about climate change when many of the terms environmental advocates use can provoke a knee-jerk reaction. “I think that the climate movement needs to be very thoughtful about and strategic about whether or not it is a DEI or ESG initiative,” said Austin Whitman, CEO of The Change Climate Project, a nonprofit offering tools to help businesses cut their emissions. “I think for all of us across the spectrum, regardless of what cause we’re fighting for, we need to distance ourselves from these lightning-rod acronyms and topics that are really easy to just cut down with a single swipe.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Companies used to tout their climate plans. Under Trump, they’ve gone quiet. on Apr 2, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Egg prices hit record highs. Are you ready to try a vegan egg?

    Sometimes, Josh Tetrick will quiz strangers in the dairy aisle. He’ll strike up a conversation with a fellow grocery store patron and ask if they’ve heard about “this egg that’s made from plants?” He might point out the golden-yellow boxes shaped like milk cartons sitting on refrigerated shelves, not too far from the egg cartons. Generally, he finds that people don’t know what he’s talking about. “Most people will be like, ‘What?’”

    The product Tetrick is referring to — which, not coincidentally, he manufactures — is called Just Egg. It’s a liquid vegan egg substitute made from mung beans, a member of the legume family, and it’s designed to scramble just like a real chicken egg when cooked over heat. (The company also sells frozen omelette-style patties that can be heated up in a toaster oven and frozen breakfast burritos.) Along with his best friend Josh Balk, Tetrick cofounded the company Eat Just, formerly known as Hampton Creek, which developed Just Egg over years of testing. On a recent call with Grist, Tetrick described the products — which are meant to look, taste, and cook like real eggs — as “definitely, definitely weird.”

    But lately, Tetrick says the team at Eat Just has been hearing from restaurant owners and chefs overcoming the weirdness to inquire about becoming new customers — in part because avian influenza has sent egg prices soaring in January and February in the United States. Nationally, the average cost of a dozen large eggs rose to about $5.90 last month, up almost 100 percent from a year before, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In expensive cities like New York and San Francisco, a dozen eggs could cost $10 or more. The pressure has raised prices at some bakeries, brunch spots, and bodegas slinging bacon-egg-and-cheese sandwiches — and has made some buyers and consumers more open to alternatives. 

    Tetrick has said that Just Egg’s sales are now five times higher than at this time last year, and that a majority of its customers are omnivores. The latest outbreak of avian flu has apparently done what environmentalists and animal rights activists have long dreamed of: made Americans curious about vegan eggs. It’s a development that could indicate how consumers may learn to gradually embrace more environmentally sustainable options.

    The environmental benefits of not eating meat or dairy have long been documented. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the way we grow and produce food; within that, livestock — which includes raising animals for eggs and dairy — is responsible for about a third. 

    But brands that have tried to capitalize on the climate case for eating plant-based protein have failed to win over customers. Beyond Meat has struggled to reach profitability, while the CEO of Impossible Foods says the industry has done a “lousy job” of appealing to consumers. 

    Producing eggs has a lower environmental impact than raising beef and other forms of animal protein — but growing feed for laying hens still requires a significant amount of land and resources. Eat Just claims that making its mung bean-based alt-egg uses significantly less land and water than the conventional chicken egg. But Tetrick said its most effective marketing strategy is highlighting the benefits of eating a “healthier protein” for breakfast. For instance, Just Egg contains zero milligrams of cholesterol per serving, while one large chicken egg contains about 180 milligrams. 

    a photo of a carton of a vegan egg substitute next to a plate of scrambled (vegan) eggs on a piece of toast
    Josh Tetrick, CEO of the food tech company Eat Just, said sales of its vegan egg substitute are five times higher than last year.
    Eat Just

    Over the years, Tetrick’s company, which also houses the cultivated meat subsidiary Good Meat, has received criticism for allegedly exaggerating its environmental claims and sales figures. In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the company — then called Hampton Creek — removed the climate benefits of its vegan mayonnaise product, Just Mayo, from its website after an external audit found they were inaccurate. Previously, Bloomberg reported that Hampton Creek had instructed contractors to buy back its vegan mayo from stores. Tetrick said that the buybacks were for quality assurance purposes only, but in 2016 both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched inquiries into the company for potentially inflating its sales numbers. The following year, both investigations were dropped.    

    Those in the plant-based industry say that once vegan alternatives taste as good as real meat and cost the same or less, then sales will go up. Entrepreneurs and advocates have focused on developing the technology, supply chains, and economies of scale needed to lower the price of animal-free protein products. But the current situation with vegan eggs suggests that change can also happen when the animal-based option becomes much more expensive. Prices vary from store to store and region to region, but on the online store for the Manhattan West location of Whole Foods, one 16-ounce carton of Just Egg, the equivalent of about 10 small eggs, costs $7.89. Meanwhile, a dozen eggs, depending on the brand, run from about $7 to up to $13. 

    Tetrick said that the newly interested potential customers currently talking to Eat Just aren’t motivated by climate change or animal welfare. Their point of view, in his words, is that they’re tired of the unpredictability of egg prices going up and down. That exasperation, he added, “is probably the most effective lens for change.” Earlier this month, Eat Just launched a campaign in New York City advertising its vegan breakfast sandwiches, sold at bodegas, as a “Bird Flu Bailout.” The company’s website cheekily boasts, “We’re in stock.”

    Founders of vegan egg companies argue that the root cause of price volatility for meat, eggs, and dairy is not any one disease or policy, but the way the United States raises animals. “When you cram animals together in really tight spaces, they’re gonna get sick,” said Tetrick. “It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not MAGA’s fault. It’s just biology.” 

    A 2023 report by the United Nations Environmental Programme cited alternative proteins — meaning plant-based foods, as well as cultivated meat and fermentation-derived products — as a way to reduce the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks. Raising animals for human consumption requires a lot of antibiotics, which raises the risk of creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens. It also creates ideal conditions for viruses to spread, evolve, and cross over to new species. Lowering the global demand for animal protein could greatly reduce those risks. Or as Tetrick put it, “You can pack mung beans into tiny little spaces all you want. They’re not getting the flu.”

    Hema Reddy, who developed the vegan hard-boiled egg brand WunderEggs during the COVID-19 pandemic, offered a similar critique of industrial animal agriculture. “If the chickens are crowded together, then disease will follow,” she said. “The only solution,” she posited, “is to change the way we farm. And that’s a big step. It’s like moving the Titanic.”

    WunderEggs are made from almonds, cashews, and coconut milk and are currently sold in stores and online. Like Tetrick, Reddy says she has heard from plenty of newly interested restaurants in the last few months. But she is reluctant to draw long-term conclusions from it, arguing that consumer behavior doesn’t change that quickly. Many people, she argued, “probably want to eat eggs, they’re missing eggs,” and “they’re going to wait for things to get better.”

    signs saying "SOLD OUT EGGS" in front of the egg section at CostCo
    Nationally, the average cost of a dozen large eggs rose to about $5.90 in February, up almost 100 percent from a year before.
    Zeng Hui / Xinhua via Getty Images

    But for some adoptees of vegan egg substitutes, the upsides of ditching chicken eggs is obvious. Chef Jason Hull, director of food services at Marin Country Day School in the Bay Area, has been using Just Egg for years. “They have nailed the delicious flavor of egg,” said Hull. He swaps out regular eggs for the plant-based version in baked goods like cookies, muffins, and quick breads, as well as in dishes like fried rice. There’s virtually no difference, he said. While he’s a longtime fan of the brand, the uptick in egg prices has validated his decision. “Especially with egg prices right now, I’m not going to use chicken eggs for baking or fried rice or things like that any time soon,” he said.

    Hull said some of his peers, especially those in other parts of the country, are potentially less open-minded about vegan egg substitutes. But rising costs may have them reconsidering. Other chefs are “warming up to it, absolutely,” he said. “And the high egg prices are kind of forcing that warm-up.”

    Wholesale egg prices are trending downward as of March, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, so this momentum could be short-lived. But it may only be a matter of time before the next price hike happens. “Because the virus is so ubiquitous in so many different environments … it’s hard to imagine the virus ever completely going away at this point,” said Maurice Pitesky, an associate professor in cooperative extension at University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. 
    Reddy insisted that taking advantage of a cost-of-living crisis to promote her product does not sit right with her, and she prefers to let consumers come to their own conclusions about what’s right for them. But if avian influenza continues to upend egg production in the U.S., that might mean the economic case for going dairy-free could become more and more evident with time. Regardless of what happens in the future, Reddy said, “I really think that now is the time for egg alternatives to shine.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Egg prices hit record highs. Are you ready to try a vegan egg? on Mar 31, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • These vegan meat brands taste almost as good as the real thing. Taste tests prove it.

    Imagine this: You’re hungry. You’ve arrived at the frozen foods section of the grocery store, and you’re faced with two options: a pack of chicken nuggets or a pack of similar-looking nuggets, but made without meat. How do you choose? Do you look at price first or compare ingredient lists? Or maybe, after you do both, do you ultimately go with your gut? You are hungry, after all. 

    A new report highlights the important role that taste plays for consumers when considering whether to buy plant-based protein. Nectar, an Oakland-based initiative conducting research on faux meat, surveyed thousands of meat-eaters in a series of blind taste tests to find out how vegan meat substitutes stack up against the real thing — and got some surprising results. 

    Four vegan products received nearly indistinguishable scores from real meat — and Nectar also found that plant-based products that were rated highly in terms of taste had higher sales volume.

    The report, which was released earlier this month, “underscores a simple but crucial point: Consumers want to eat food that tastes delicious, full stop,” said Abby Sewell, the corporate engagement manager at the Good Food Institute, a think tank that promotes “alternative proteins,” the industry term for plant-based meat substitutes. (The Good Food Institute was not involved in the report and does not have any formal relationship with Nectar.)

    The question of how to increase sales is one that has troubled the plant-based industry in recent years. Plant-based meat saw declining sales from 2021 to 2023, according to the Good Food Institute. In the past few years, ersatz meat brands have made headlines for steep layoffs and talk of potential acquisitions or shutdowns. 

    It’s also a question with potentially significant implications for the climate and the environment. About 80 percent of the world’s agricultural lands are used to raise livestock (taking into account the land used to grow crops for animal feed like soy and corn). Cutting out animal protein would free up agricultural land and reduce demands on water. Adopting a plant-based diet would also help greatly in terms of emissions. Animal agriculture is responsible for 16.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we would still have to change the way we eat — specifically, we’d have to eat less meat — to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. 

    Plant-based advocates often say that when faux meat products taste as good and cost as little as conventional meat options, then consumers will flock to them. But impartial information about whether vegan protein brands meet consumers’ exacting flavor standards is surprisingly hard to come by. According to Caroline Cotto, the director of Nectar, plant-based meat companies typically only perform taste tests with their own employees or investors — hardly unbiased sources. 

    Four halves of a burger sit equally spaced out on a tray on a table at a restaurant, as part of a sampler platter for a taste test
    Burgers tested as part of Nectar’s survey. Nectar

    Samantha Derrick, who leads an applied learning program on plant-based foods at University of California, Berkeley, said more third-party taste testing is “critical” to growing the industry. Derrick and Cotto both describe Nectar, an initiative born out of and funded by Food System Innovations, a philanthropic organization, as unique in the plant-based industry. When companies do taste tests internally, they typically don’t make the results of those tests publicly available the way Nectar has. 

    This was the second time the organization has conducted blind taste tests with plant-based protein brands. For this round, Nectar solicited more than 2,000 participants who said they eat certain meat products at least once every month or two. They selected 122 vegan products designed to look and taste like real meat across 14 categories — including breakfast sausage, meatballs, pulled pork, and steak — and prepared them alongside their animal-based counterparts. (Participants weren’t told which products were vegan and which contained meat.) The testing was conducted in New York City and San Francisco restaurants instead of sterile white rooms because Cotto wanted to replicate a familiar environment. 

    Nectar also plated the products in conventional ways — hot dogs in buns, pulled pork in sandwich form — instead of presenting each food item in its “naked” form. If participants were testing, say, hot dogs, they could add condiments — as long as they applied the same condiments to every hot dog they tried. 

    Nectar found that 20 plant-based products were rated the same or better than their animal counterparts in terms of overall liking by at least 50 percent of participants. These included five unbreaded vegan chicken fillets, five vegan burgers, and two vegan chicken nugget brands. 

    Four of those products performed so well they almost reached taste parity, which Nectar defines as there being no statistically significant difference in how participants scored the vegan product versus the animal one in terms of overall liking. Those four are Impossible Foods’ unbreaded chicken breast, chicken nuggets, and burger, as well as Morningstar Farms’ nuggets.

    The results show that the plant-based chicken products are leading the industry in terms of closing the flavor gap, said Cotto. It might help that chicken breast is essentially a blank canvas. “From a flavor perspective, I think chicken has a more subtle flavor that’s actually easier to replicate,” she added.

    Two platters of vegan chicken cutlet hors d'oeuvres
    Vegan chicken cutlet samples served at an awards ceremony for the winners of Nectar’s taste tests — products that received the same or better score as their animal counterparts from at least half of the participants. Nectar

    The plant-based products that Nectar found most need to improve on taste — such as bacon — are some of the hardest cuts of meat to imitate. Unlike chicken fillets, chicken nuggets, or burgers, strips of bacon are not generally homogenous in texture and flavor. Mimicking fatty parts of bacon as well as the striated meat is extremely challenging to do with just plants. Sewell, from the Good Food Institute, said additional research and development could help. “Continued investment in alternative protein R&D is essential to accelerating innovation and ensuring these products deliver on flavor and affordability for consumers,” she told Grist. 

    Of course, there’s a difference between liking a vegan product in a taste test and actually choosing to buy it in a grocery store, when there aren’t any researchers around. “Even if taste and price parity are achieved, it’s not a surefire” guarantee that people will choose, say, vegan hot dogs and burgers over the beef kind, said Cotto. In the United States, meat is tied up with national identity and masculinity; it won’t be so easy to win every type of consumer over.

    Still, Derrick, who wasn’t involved in Nectar’s study, says that younger consumers “absolutely” do not want to feel like they’re compromising on taste at the grocery store — and that research like Cotto’s will help brands figure out how to satisfy them. 

    “I think that blind testing is objectively done as the best way to” improve plant-based products, said Derrick. More testing would provide “a road map of what’s possible, what’s better.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline These vegan meat brands taste almost as good as the real thing. Taste tests prove it. on Mar 25, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Soundcheck. Are Australian music festivals really on life support?

    Music festival

    Big-name music festivals are shutting down, ticket sales in free-fall, costs are spiralling. But beyond the dirge there are some upbeat tones. Joshua Barnett reports.

    If you’ve been following the headlines, you might think Australian music festivals are on life support. However, a report published in September 2024 by Creative Australia – Soundcheck Two: Analysis of Australian Music Festival Models and Operations – paints a more nuanced picture, one where the giants struggle while grassroots festivals find a way to thrive.

    First, the big problem: running a festival has never been more expensive. According to Creative Australia, insurance premiums have skyrocketed across all festival types, with some organisers seeing costs rise by over 1,300% since 2019.

    Add in “user-pays policing fees” (which, in NSW, are particularly brutal), staging costs, artist fees, and marketing, and it’s a wonder anyone can afford to put on a festival at all.

    Australian music loses out in shift to streaming, ticketing oligopoly, struggling venues

    Dylan Oakes, organiser of Newcastle’s West Best Block Fest, has seen this struggle first hand. “This particular festival is well over a six-figure festival,” he says, “And we worked for ten months without getting paid.”

    For small operators, numbers like this surely mean that they’re not sustainable. The same goes for the big commercial festivals that rely on huge crowds and international acts; rising costs are making their business models untenable.

    Focused on supporting grassroots music, West Best Bloc highlights homegrown talent while fostering a strong community-driven atmosphere. Now in its fourth year, West Best Bloc Fest has grown into a key event in Newcastle’s live music calendar, attracting a dedicated audience and government support, allowing it to grow while keeping ticket prices affordable.. “We proved ourselves to Newcastle, and now we’re getting funding,” Oakes says.

    The festival is helping to build a thriving musical ecosystem where artists earn enough from a single gig to go on to fund recording sessions, venue owners make money, and audiences remain engaged.

    Small festival success

    So why are the likes of Splendour in the Grass, Falls Festival, and Good Things hitting the wall? It’s not just the costs, it’s changing audience behaviour.

    According to Soundcheck Two, younger audiences are buying tickets later than ever before Large festivals, which need to sell around 70% of tickets in advance to avoid cancellation, are now rolling the dice on whether punters will show up. More often than not, they don’t.

    Dylan Oakes believes the failure of major festivals isn’t due to a lack of talent, but a generational shift. “The people who grew up on those festivals are now getting a little bit older, starting families, moving on from the music scene,” he explains. Meanwhile, younger music fans are gravitating towards smaller, niche festivals with stronger community ties.

    Dylan Oakes of West Best Block Fest

    Dylan Oakes of West Best Block Fest

    For every failed major festival, there’s a smaller, independent festival quietly kicking goals. Soundcheck Two found that small not-for-profit festivals and grassroots events are the most likely to be financially sustainable.

    Their lower overheads, local lineups, and community backing allow them to survive in a market where big-budget events are collapsing.West Best Block Fest is one of these success stories, as Dylan Oakes explains:

    “The funding and financial outlay is definitely towards the artists. That’s what’s going to keep them coming back. And that’s what the next generation that are in school want to play at West for.

    “It’s not about the money… but my whole theory on this particular festival is if they can play our festival for one day, they should earn enough money to then go to a studio.

    “And then the studio gets work, and then they record a single, and then they have to go back into our venues and they have to do a single release. So in my world, I create like a little economy for us.”

    The Live Nation Elephant

    Live Nation’s grip on the Australian music industry has been profound and controversial. Through strategic acquisitions, the entertainment giant has entrenched itself across ticketing, event promotion, festival ownership, and venue management, raising concerns about monopolistic practices.

    Investigations by MWM, ABC’s Four Corners, and The Guardian have detailed how Live Nation’s dominance has stifled competition, leaving independent operators struggling to survive.

    Dynamic ticket pricing: Aussie concert fans hit by Live Nation’s ‘In Demand’ cash grab

    Despite being a multibillion-dollar corporation, Live Nation has received over $24m in federal and state government grants intended to support Australia’s live music sector. These funds were meant to sustain struggling festivals, yet several Live Nation-owned festivals, including Splendour in the Grass, Falls Festival, Spilt Milk, and Harvest Rock, have been canceled in recent years.

    None of the cancelled festivals have yet to announce a return date.

    In addition, Sydney City Limits and Download Festival, which also received government funding, have not gone ahead since 2018 and 2020, respectively.

    Live Nation has not returned any of the public funding, instead stating that the money was redirected toward staff retention and other events during the pandemic. Critics argue that taxpayer dollars should not be subsidising a multinational corporation with the resources to weather financial downturns, especially when many independent festivals and live music venues have collapsed due to rising costs and lack of support.

    Live Nation’s market dominance has also played a role in the decline of small and mid-sized live music venues. Since COVID, over 1,300 venues have closed, accounting for nearly a third of the sector. Industry analysts point to Live Nation’s ability to dictate ticket prices, artist availability, and festival operations, making it increasingly difficult for independent operators to compete.

    In response to mounting concerns, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is being urged to investigate Live Nation’s business practices, with calls for stricter regulations to curb anti-competitive behavior.

    Government intervention

    The Australian government has responded to the crisis with initiatives like the Revive Live program, which offers grants of up to $200,000 for music festivals But while funding helps, many in the industry say policy and regulation need an overhaul.

    Dylan Oakes points to licensing and government red tape as a major hurdle: “The relationship between councils, state governments, and licensing police is terrible,” he says. “Parts of council don’t even know what the other parts are doing. If small festivals are going to thrive, they need not just funding, but less bureaucratic interference.”

    We have all these different regulatory bodies, liquor licensing, police, councils, but there’s no one single task force that actually facilitates communication between all of them.

    “Instead, they just drag their feet and throw obstacles in our way.”

    Community-driven, locally-focused festivals are proving to be the most resilient part of the live music industry. The old model, massive lineups, inflated ticket prices, international headliners, may no longer be viable. If policymakers are serious about saving live music, they need to rethink how festivals are taxed, regulated, and insured.

    And for punters? It might be time to forget the dream of a Splendour comeback and embrace the local, independent scene, because that’s where the real music is still playing.

    Shows are Shutting Down – The West Report

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money.

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina, WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region, and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

    The Trump administration’s freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law from the Biden era, has left farmers and rural businesses across the country on the hook for costly energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations.

    The grants are part of the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, originally created in the 2008 farm bill and supercharged by funding from the IRA. It provides farmers and other businesses in rural areas with relatively small grants and loans to help lower their energy bills by investing, say,  in more energy-efficient farming equipment or installing small solar arrays. 

    By November 2024, the IRA had awarded more than $1 billion for nearly 7,000 REAP projects, which help rural businesses in low-income communities reduce the up-front costs of clean energy and save thousands on utility costs each year. 

    But now, that funding is in limbo. Under the current freeze, some farmers have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on projects and are waiting for the promised reimbursement. Others have had to delay work they were counting on to support their businesses, unsure when their funding will come through — or if it will.

    REAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is “coming to the tail end of the review process” of evaluating grants awarded under the Biden administration.

    “If our farmers and ranchers especially have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole,” Rollins told reporters in Atlanta last week.

    But it’s not clear when the funds might be released, or whether all the farmers and business owners awaiting their money will receive it. 

    For Joshua Snedden, a REAP grant was the key to making his 10-acre farm in Monee, Illinois, more affordable and environmentally sustainable. But months after installing a pricey solar array, he’s still waiting on a reimbursement from the federal government — and the delay is threatening his bottom line. 

    “I’m holding out hope,” said Snedden, a first-generation farmer in northeast Illinois. “I’m trying to do everything within my power to make sure the funding is released.”

    In December, his five-year old operation, Fox at the Fork, began sourcing its power from a new 18.48 kilowatt solar array which cost Snedden $86,364. The system currently offsets all the farm’s electricity use and then some.

    REAP offers grants for up to half of a project like this, and loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of the cost. For Snedden, a $19,784 REAP reimbursement grant made this solar array possible. But the reimbursement, critical to Snedden’s cash flow, was frozen by Trump as part of a broader review of the USDA’s Biden-era commitments.

    A man rakes leaves in a field.
    Joshua Snedden is a first-generation farmer who said he will continue whether or not he gets the federal funding for solar. Courtesy of Joshua Snedden

    Snedden grows the produce he takes to market — everything from tomatoes to garlic to potatoes — on about an acre of his farm. He also plans to transform the rest of his land into a perennial crop system, which would include fruit trees like pears, plums, and apples planted alongside native flowers and grasses to support wildlife. 

    A solar array was always part of his plans, “but seemed like a pie in the sky” kind of project, he said, adding he thought it might take him a decade to afford such an investment.

    The REAP program has been a lifeline for Illinois communities struggling with aging infrastructure and growing energy costs, according to Amanda Pankau with the Prairie Rivers Network, an organization advocating for environmental protection and climate change mitigation across Illinois. 

    “By lowering their electricity costs, rural small businesses and agricultural producers can put that money back into their business,” said Pankau. 

    That’s exactly what Snedden envisioned from his investment in the solar power system. The new solar array wouldn’t just make his farm more resilient to climate change, but also more financially viable, “because we could shift expenses from paying for energy to paying for more impactful inputs for the farm,” he said. 

    He anticipates that by switching to solar, Fox at the Fork will save close to $3,200 dollars a year on electric bills. 

    Now, Snedden is waiting for the USDA to hold up their end of the deal. 

    “The financial strain hurts,” said Snedden. “But I’m still planning to move forward growing crops and fighting for these funds.”

    Man and woman stand closely to each other.
    Jon and Brittany Klimstra are both scientists who are originally from western North Carolina. They returned to the area to start a farm and an orchard and are waiting for solar funds they were promised. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

    At the start of the year, Jon and Brittany Klimstra were nearly ready to install a solar array on their Polk County, North Carolina farm after being awarded a REAP grant in 2024.

    As two former scientists who had moved back to western North Carolina 10 years ago to grow apples and be close to their families, it felt like a chance to both save money and live their values.

    “We’ve certainly been interested in wanting to do something like this, whether it be for our personal home or for our farm buildings for a while,” said Jon. “It just was cost prohibitive up to this point without some type of funding.”

    That funding came when they were awarded $12,590 from REAP for the installation. But, after the Trump administration’s funding freeze, the money never came. 

    “We were several site visits in, several engineering conversations. We’ve had electricians, the solar company,” said Brittany . “It’s been a very involved process.”

    Since the grant is reimbursement-based, the Klimstras have already paid out-of-pocket for some costs related to the project. Plus, the farm had been banking on saving $1,300 in utilities expenses per year. In a given month, their electricity bill is $300-$400.

    red apples in a gray wooden box
    Apples from the orchard run by Jon and Brittany Klimstra. They were ready to install a solar array when the federal funding was frozen. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

    Across Appalachia, historically high energy costs have made the difference between survival and failure for many local businesses, said Heather Ransom, who works with Solar Holler, a solar company that serves parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.

    “We have seen incredible rate increases across the region in electricity over the past 10, even 20 years,” she said.

    Through Solar Holler, REAP grants also passed into the hands of rural library systems and schools; the company installed 10,000 solar panels throughout the Wayne County, West Virginia school system. About $6 million worth of projects supported by Solar Holler are currently on hold.

    In other parts of the region, community development financial institutions like the Mountain Association in eastern Kentucky combatted food deserts through helping local grocery stores apply for REAP.

    Solar Holler also works in coal-producing parts of the region, where climate change discussions have been fraught with the realities of declining jobs and revenue from the coal industry. The program helped make the case for communities to veer away from coal and gas-fired energy. 

    “What REAP has helped us do is show people that it’s not just a decision that’s driven by environmental motives or whatever, it actually makes good business sense to go solar,” Ransom said. In her experience, saving money appeals to people of all political persuasions. “At the end of the day, we’ve installed just as much solar on red roofs as we do blue roofs, as we do rainbow roofs or whatever.”

    A man with gray hair and a blue ball cap walks along a field wearing a brown vest and holding a cup of coffee.
    Jim Lively has a local food market just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. He’s waiting for the federal money he was promised so he can put solar on the roof and offset the costs of opening up a campsite for RVs in this field. Izzy Ross / Grist

    The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan draws over 1.5 million visitors every year. Jim Lively hopes some of those people will camp RVs at a nearby site he’s planning to open next to his family’s local food market. He wants to use solar panels to help power the campsite and offset electric bills for the market, where local farmers bring produce directly to the store. 

    Lively helped promote REAP during his time at an environmental nonprofit, where he’d worked for over two decades. So the program was on his mind when it came time to replace the market’s big, south-facing roof.

    “We put on a metal roof, and worked with a contractor who was also familiar with the REAP program, and we said, ‘Let’s make sure we’re setting this up for solar,’” he said. “So it was kind of a no-brainer for us.”

    They were told they had been approved for a REAP grant of $39,696 last summer — half of the project’s total cost — but didn’t feel the need to rush the solar installation. Then, at the end of January, Lively was notified that the funding had been paused. 

    The interior of a grocerys tore with shelves of food and the back of a woman stocking the shelves.
    The interior of the Lively NeighborFood Market, where owner Jim Lively likes to feature local produce. He was hoping to install a solar roof this year, but the funding has been stalled. Izzy Ross / Grist

    The property runs on electricity, rather than natural gas, and Lively wants to keep it that way. But those electric bills have been expensive — about $2,000 a month last summer, he said. When they get the RV site up and running, he expects those bills to approach $3,000.

    Selling local food means operating within tight margins. Lively said saving on energy would help, but they won’t be able to move ahead with the rooftop solar unless the REAP funding is guaranteed.

    Continuing to power the property with electricity rather than fossil fuels is a kind of personal commitment for Lively. “Boy, solar is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it’s going to be difficult to do that without that funding.” 

    The grants aren’t only for solar arrays and other renewable energy systems. Many are for energy efficiency improvements to help farmers save on utility bills, and in some cases cut emissions. In Georgia, for instance, one farm was awarded just under $233,000 for a more efficient grain dryer, an upgrade projected to save the farm more than $16,000 per year. Several farms were awarded funding to convert diesel-powered irrigation pumps to electric.

    The USDA did not directly answer Grist’s emailed questions about the specific timeline for REAP funds, the amount of money under review, or the future of the program. Instead, an emailed statement criticized the Biden administration’s “misuse of hundreds of billions” of IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) funds  “all at the expense of the American taxpayer.” 

    “USDA has a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy. As part of this effort, Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available,” the email said.

    Two federal judges have already ordered the Trump administration to release the impounded IRA and BIL funds. Earthjustice, a national environmental law organization, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the freeze of USDA funds on behalf of farmers and nonprofits. 

    “The administration is causing harm that can’t be fixed, and fairness requires that the funds continue to flow,” said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice.

    Rollins released the first tranche of funding February 20 and announced the release of additional program funds earlier this month. That did not include the REAP funding.

    The USDA announced Wednesday it would expedite funding for farmers under a different program in honor of National Agriculture Day, but as of March 20 had not made an announcement about REAP.

    Rahul Bali of WABE contributed reporting to this story. ​​

    Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money. on Mar 21, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Dramatic growth of NZ’s Māori economy highlights new report

    By Emma Andrews, RNZ Henare te Ua Māori journalism intern

    Māori contributions to the Aotearoa New Zealand economy have far surpassed the projected goal of “$100 billion by 2030”, a new report has revealed.

    The report conducted by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) and Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Ōhanga Māori 2023, shows Māori entities have grown from contributing $17 billion to New Zealand’s GDP in 2018 to $32 billion in 2023, turning a 6.5 percent contribution to GDP into 8.9 percent.

    The Māori asset base has grown from $69 billion in 2018 to $126 billion in 2023 — an increase of 83 percent.

    Of that sum, there is $66 billion in assets for Māori businesses and employers, $19 billion in assets for self-employed Māori and $41 billion in assets for Māori trusts, incorporations, and other Māori collectives including post settlement entities.

    In 2018, $4.2 billion of New Zealand’s economy came from agriculture, forestry, and fishing which made it the main contributor.

    Now, administrative, support, and professional services have taken the lead contributing $5.1 billion in 2023.

    However, Māori collectives own around half of all of New Zealand’s agriculture, forestry, and fishing assets and remain the highest asset-rich sector.

    Focused on need
    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira manages political and public interests on behalf of Ngāti Toa, including political interests, treaty claims, fisheries, health and social services, and environmental kaitiakitanga.

    Tumu Whakarae chief executive Helmut Modlik said they were not focused on making money, but on “those who need it most”.

    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira tumu whakarae (CEO) Helmut Karewa Modlik.
    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira tumu whakarae chief executive Helmut Karewa Modlik . . . “We focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term gains.” Image: Alicia Scott/RNZ

    Ngāti Toa invested in water infrastructure and environmental projects, with a drive to replenish the whenua and improve community health. Like many iwi, they also invest in enterprises that deliver essential services such as health, housing and education.

    “We focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term gains, ensuring that our investments contribute to the sustainable development of our community,” Modlik said.

    Between the covid-19 lockdown and 2023, the iwi grew their assets from $220 million to $850 million and increased their staff from 120 to over 600.

    Pou Ōhanga (chief economic development and investment officer) Boyd Scirkovich said they took a “people first” approach to decision making.

    “We focused on building local capacity and ensuring that our people had the resources and support they needed to navigate the challenges of the pandemic.”

    The kinds of jobs Māori are working are also changing.

    Māori workers now hold more high-skilled jobs than low-skilled jobs with 46 percent in high-skilled jobs, 14 percent in skilled jobs, and 40 percent in low-skilled jobs.

    That is compared to 2018 when 37 percent of Māori were in high-skilled jobs and 51 percent in low-skilled jobs.

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

  • Gavin Ellis: Canadian billionaire must explain his designs on NZME – now

    COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis

    New Zealand-based Canadian billionaire James Grenon owes the people of this country an immediate explanation of his intentions regarding media conglomerate NZME. This cannot wait until a shareholders’ meeting at the end of April.

    Is his investment in the owner of The New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB nothing more than a money-making venture to realise the value of its real estate marketing subsidiary? Has he no more interest than putting his share of the proceeds from spinning off OneRoof into a concealed safe in his $15 million Takapuna mansion?

    Or does he intent to leverage his 9.6 percent holding and the support of other investors to take over the board (if not the company) in order to dictate the editorial direction of the country’s largest newspaper and its number one commercial radio station?

    Grenon has said little beyond the barest of announcements that have been released by the New Zealand Stock Exchange. While he must exercise care to avoid triggering statutory takeover obligations, he cannot simply treat NZME as another of the private equity projects that have made him very wealthy. He is dealing with an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance.

    While I do not presume for one moment that he reads this column each week, let me suspend disbelief for a moment and speak directly to him.

    Come clean and tell the people of New Zealand what you are doing and, more importantly, why.

    Over the past week there has been considerable speculation over the answers to those questions. Much of it has drawn on what little we know of James Grenon. And it is precious little beyond two facts.

    Backed right-wing Centrist
    The first is that he put money behind the launch of a right-wing New Zealand news aggregation website, The Centrist, although he apparently no longer has a financial interest in it.

    The second fact is that he provided financial support for conservative activists taking legal action against New Zealand media.

    When I contacted a well-connected friend in Canada to ask about Grenon the response was short: “Never heard of him . . . and there aren’t that many Canadian billionaires.”

    In short, the man who potentially may hold sway over the board of one of our biggest media companies has a very low profile indeed. That is a luxury to which he can no longer lay claim.

    It may be that his interest is, after all, a financial one based on his undoubted investment skills. He may see a lucrative opportunity in OneRoof. After all, Fairfax’s public listing and subsequent sale of its Australian equivalent, Domain, provided not only a useful cash boost for shareholders but the creation of a stand-alone entity that now has a market cap of about $A2.8 billion.

    Perhaps he wants a board cleanout to guarantee a OneRoof float.

    If so, say so.

    Similar transactions
    Although spinning off OneRoof could have dire consequences for the viability of what would be left of NZME, that is a decision no different to similar transactions made by many companies in the financial interests of shareholders.

    There is a world of difference, however, between seizing an investment opportunity and seeking to secure influence by dictating the editorial direction of a significant portion of our news media.

    If the speculation is correct — and the billionaire is seeking to steer NZME on an editorial course to the right — New Zealand has a problem.

    Communications minister Paul Goldsmith gave a lamely neoliberal response reported by Stuff last week: He was “happy to take some advice” on the development, but NZME was a “private company” and ultimately it was up to its shareholders to determine how it operated.

    Let me repeat my earlier point: NZME is an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance (and the outworn concept that the market can rule). Its stewardship of the vehicles at the forefront of news dissemination and opinion formation means it must meet higher obligation than what we expect of an ordinary “private company”.

    The most fundamental of those obligations is the independence of editorial decision-making and direction.

    I became editor of The New Zealand Herald shortly after Wilson & Horton was sold to Irish businessman Tony O’Reilly. On my appointment the then chief executive of O’Reilly’s Independent News & Media, Liam Healy, said the board had only one editorial requirement of me: That I would not advocate the use of violence as a legitimate means to a political end.

    Only direction echoed Mandela
    Coming from a man who had witnessed the effects of such violence in Northern Ireland, I had no difficulty in acceding to his request. And throughout my entire editorship, the only “request” made of me by O’Reilly himself was that I would support the distribution of generic Aids drugs in Africa. It followed a meeting he had had with Nelson Mandela. I had no other direction from the board.

    Yes, I had to bat away requests by management personnel (who should have known better) to “do this” or “not do that” but, without exception, the attempts were commercially driven — they did not want to upset advertisers. There was never a political or ideological motive behind them. Nor were such requests limited to me.

    I doubt there is an editor in the country who has not had a manager asking for something to please an advertiser. Disappointment hasn’t deterred their trying.

    In this column last week, I wrote of the dangers of a rich owner (in that case Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos) dictating editorial policy. The dangers if James Grenon has similar intentions would be even greater, given NZME’s share of the news market.

    The journalists’ union, E tu, has already concluded that the Canadian’s intention is to gain right-wing influence. Its director, Michael Wood, issued a statement in which he said: “The idea that a shadowy cabal, backed by extreme wealth, is planning to take over such an important institution in our democratic fabric should be of concern to all New Zealanders.”

    He called on the current NZME board to re-affirm a commitment to editorial independence.

    Michael Wood reflects the fears that are rightly held by NZME’s journalists. They, too, will doubtless be looking for assurances of editorial independence.

    ‘Cast-iron’ guarantees?
    Such assurances are vital, but those journalists should look back to some “cast-iron” guarantees given by other rich new owners if they are to avoid history repeating itself.

    I investigated such guarantees in a book I wrote titled Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights. In it I noted that 20 years before Rupert Murdoch purchased The Times of London, there was a warning that the newspaper’s editor “far from having his independence guaranteed, is on paper entirely in the hands of the Chief Proprietors who are specifically empowered by the Articles of Association to control editorial policy”, although there was provision for a “committee of notables” to veto the transfer of shares into undesirable hands.

    To satisfy the British government, Murdoch gave guarantees of editorial independence and a “court of appeal” role for independent directors. Neither proved worth the paper they were written on.

    In contrast, the constitution of the company that owns The Economist does not permit any individual or organisation to gain a majority shareholding. The editor exercises independent editorial control and is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences.

    There are no such protections in the constitution, board charter, or code of conduct and ethics governing NZME. And it is doubtful that any cast-iron guarantees could be inserted in advance of the company’s annual general meeting.

    If James Grenon does, in fact, have designs on the editorial direction of NZME, it is difficult to see how he might be prevented from achieving his aim.

    Statutory guarantees would be unprecedented and, in any case, sit well outside the mindset of a coalition government that has shown no inclination to intervene in a deteriorating media market. Nonetheless, Minister Goldsmith would be well advised to address the issue with a good deal more urgency.

    He might, at the very least, press the Canadian billionaire on his intentions.

    And if the coalition thinks a swing to the right in our news media would be no bad thing, it should be very careful what it wishes for.

    If the Canadian’s intentions are as Michael Wood suspects, perhaps the only hope will lie with those shareholders who see that it will be in their own financial interests to ensure that, in aggregate, NZME’s news assets continue to steer a (relatively) middle course. For proof, they need look only at the declining subscriber base of The Washington Post.

    Postscipt
    On Wednesday, The New Zealand Herald stated James Grenon had provided further detail, of his intentions. It is clear that he does, in fact, intend to play a role in the editorial side of NZME.

    Just how hands-on he would be remains to be seen. However, he told the Herald that, if successful in making it on to the NZME board, he expected an editorial board would be established “with representation from both sides of the spectrum”.

    On the surface that looks reassuring but editorial boards elsewhere have also been used to serve the ends of a proprietor while giving the appearance of independence.

    And just what role would an editorial board play? Would it determine the editorial direction that an editor would have to slavishly follow? Or would it be a shield protecting the editor’s independence?

    Only time will tell.

    Devil in the detail
    Media Insider columnist Shayne Currie, writing in the Weekend Herald, stated that “the Herald’s dominance has come through once again in quarterly Nielsen readership results . . . ” That is perfectly true: The newspaper’s average issue readership is more than four times that of its closest competitor.

    What the Insider did not say was that the Herald’s readership had declined by 32,000 over the past year — from 531,000 to 499,000 — and by 14,000 since the last quarterly survey.

    The Waikato Times, The Post and the Otago Daily Times were relatively stable while The Press was down 11,000 year-on-year but only 1000 since the last survey.

    In the weekend market, the Sunday Star Times was down 1000 readers year-on-year to stand at 180,000 and up slightly on the last survey. The Herald on Sunday was down 6000 year-on-year to sit at 302,000.

    There was a little good news in the weekly magazine market. The New Zealand Listener has gained 5000 readers year-on-year and now has a readership of 207,000. In the monthly market, Mindfood increased its readership by 15,000 over the same period and now sits at 222,000.

    The New Zealand Woman’s Weekly continues to dominate the women’s magazine market. It was slightly up on the last survey but well down year-on-year, dropping from 458,000 to 408,000. Woman’s Day had an even greater annual decline, falling from 380,000 to 317,000.

    Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. This article was published first on his Knightly Views website on 11 March 2025 and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A $250M investment will help this lithium mine get up and running. That’s bad news for these tribes.

    A Canadian mining company behind a massive new lithium mine in northern Nevada has received a $250 million investment to complete construction of the new mine — a project that aims to accelerate America’s shift from fossil fuel-powered cars but that has come under fierce criticism from neighboring tribal nations and watchdog groups for its proximity to a burial site.

    Lithium Americas is developing the mine in an area known as Thacker Pass where it plans to unearth lithium carbonate that can be used to make batteries for electric vehicles. The area, known as Peehee Mu’huh in the Numu language of the Northern Paiute, is home to what could be the largest supply of lithium in the United States and is also a site that tribal citizens visit every year to honor dozens of Native men, women, and children who fled American soldiers in an 1865 unprovoked attack at dawn. 

    The funding from Orion Resources Partners LP, a global investment firm specializing in metals and materials, will enable the first phase of construction to be completed by late 2027. The investment firm is also considering giving an additional $500 million to support later phases of the mine’s development. 

    The critical financial investment comes just weeks after a report from the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch called for a halt to the construction of the mine after concluding its approval violates the rights of Indigenous peoples whose ancestors are buried there. 

    “Orion’s commitment to this project highlights the strategic importance of Thacker Pass to national security and developing a domestic supply chain as we work to reduce American dependence on foreign suppliers for critical minerals,” said Jonathan Evans, Lithium Americas’ president and chief executive officer, in a press release.

    Lithium Americas said that research indicates the actual burial site is located several miles away from the project site, and a federal judge agreed with the company, citing a cultural inventory study that did not uncover any human remains. Gary McKinney disagrees. He is a spokesperson for the group People of Red Mountain and is a descendant of one of the survivors of the September 12, 1865, massacre.

    He and many others believe the project area to be a graveyard for his ancestors, in part due to Indigenous oral histories and a 1929 autobiography describing the massacre there. 

    “What that mine is doing is desecrating,” McKinney said. “They’re erasing parts of the history of the Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone people.” 

    He said the mine was approved during the COVID-19 pandemic when reservations were shut down, Indigenous communities were grappling with high rates of the virus, and few realized the project was moving forward. 

    “Our tribal chairman at that time, he died of COVID,” said McKinney, who is an enrolled member of the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribe. “What I’m saying is this whole thing wasn’t done with the best of morals or intentions of honoring and respecting those cultural sites.” 

    His organization, People of Red Mountain, sued to stop the mine along with four tribes — Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Burns Paiute Tribe, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, and Winnemucca Indian Colony — but no court challenges have been successful. The Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe also criticized the mine in an appeal to the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch report from last month concluded the mine violates Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent to projects that affect their territories. The report notes tribes have raised concerns about the risk of toxic waste from the mine polluting their water and about their cultural practices being curtailed by limited access to the area.

    In a letter to Human Rights Watch, Tim Crowley, vice president of government and external affairs at Lithium Americas, emphasized that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which contains the right to free, prior, and informed consent, is not binding. At the same time, the U.S. government believes consulting with tribes is sufficient without achieving support from all tribes, he said. 

    “Further, the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which is the treaty that pertains to Western Shoshone peoples in the Thacker Pass area, does not reserve rights to access off-reservation public land,” Crowley wrote. “The Thacker Pass Project is not in a federally recognized Native American territory. If it were, mining could not happen without the express consent and approval of that tribe.”

    The new investment in Lithium Americas from Orion Resources Partners LP helps fulfill the terms of a $2.26 billion loan that Lithium Americas received last fall from the U.S. Department of Energy to support the project. 

    Abbey Koenning-Rutherford from the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch said the Thacker Pass mine is symbolic of the broader risks of mining to Indigenous peoples and underscores why there’s a need to reform a 1872 U.S. mining law that enables companies to claim mineral rights on federal lands, including land stolen from tribal nations.

    “The United States should respect Indigenous peoples’ centuries-long connections to Peehee Mu’huh and act to prevent further harm at Thacker Pass,” Koenning-Rutherford said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A $250M investment will help this lithium mine get up and running. That’s bad news for these tribes. on Mar 13, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • $450 Million Mycelium Meat Darling Meati Foods Faces Sudden Collapse

    Meati Foods, a Colorado-based company known for its plant-based meat alternatives, is facing a major financial crisis after its lender unexpectedly pulled funding. As a result, the company has warned state officials that it may have to shut down its manufacturing facility in Thornton, CO and lay off 150 employees by May 6, 2025, unless it can secure new financing. ​

    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notice details that the lender “unexpectedly removed cash from our accounts and took control of remaining cash reserves on Friday, February 28, and the action was not reasonably foreseeable.” Consequently, Meati Foods stated, “Based on this action, we do not have sufficient funding to continue operating.”

    VegNews.MeatiMeati Foods

    Despite this alarming development, sources familiar with the situation say Meati Foods continues to operate, with production at the Thornton, CO facility still ongoing. The company is actively seeking new financing to avert the planned layoffs and maintain operations. The lender’s actions were reportedly triggered by Meati’s failure to meet specific revenue and margin targets, despite the company nearly doubling its revenue in the previous year and expanding distribution by 130 percent. ​

    Industry veterans bet big on Meati

    Meati Foods, co-founded by Tyler Huggins and Justin Whiteley, has been at the forefront of utilizing mycelium—the root structure of fungi—as a protein source for its meat-alternative products. The company gained significant attention for its innovative approach, leading to substantial investments, including a $150 million Series C funding round in mid-2022.This funding was intended to support the construction of a large-scale production facility, dubbed the “mega ranch,” in Thornton, CO. ​

    The Series C funding round attracted notable investors such as Revolution Growth and Cultivate Next, a fund owned by Chipotle Mexican Grill, along with Grosvenor Food & AgTech. Prior investors included Acre Venture Partners, Congruent Ventures, Tao Capital, Prelude Ventures, and Bond Capital. The company has raised more than $450 million over 11 funding rounds, according to Tracxn.

    VegNews.MeatiChicken2.MeatiMeati Foods

    In early 2024, Phil Graves, formerly of Patagonia, was appointed CEO, succeeding co-founder Tyler Huggins, who transitioned to the role of Chief Innovation Officer. Under Graves’ leadership, Meati Foods aimed to achieve positive gross margins by the end of 2024, focusing on expanding distribution and product innovation. The company launched new products, including mycelium-based breakfast patties, and secured placements in major retailers such as Sprouts Farmers Market, Raley’s, and Harris Teeter, reaching approximately 7,000 stores nationwide. ​

    Meati’s celebrity backers

    Meati Foods’ rapid ascent in the alternative protein market was marked by strategic partnerships and media buzz. Support from celebrities and athletes including Rachael Ray, Derek Jeter, David Chang, Aly Raisman, and Chris Paul elevated its market position. Jeter, an MLB Hall of Famer, joined Meati Foods as an investor and advisor in June 2023. Jeter emphasized the company’s commitment to nutrition, sustainability, and taste, stating, “When it came to considering an investment in this industry, I had three main priorities in evaluating the food: nutrition, sustainability, and taste,” he said at the time.

    “Meati certainly delivers, with great quality steaks and cutlets and an institutional emphasis on high nutritional value and sustainable practices. As we look to the future, the choices we make and the impact we leave are critical, and I appreciate the way Meati has dedicated efforts to making a real difference,” he continued.

    The company’s products garnered attention for their nutritional benefits and sustainability as a whole cut alternative to many ultra-processed plant-based meat alternatives. The company’s innovative approach and product quality led to accolades, including in the Best Lunch & Dinner category in the 2025 Men’s Health Food Awards for its Crispy Cutlets.

    In July 2023, Meati partnered with Dot Foods, North America’s largest food industry redistributor, to expand its reach across all 50 states. This move was a significant step toward Meati’s goal of becoming the market leader in meat alternatives by 2025. Despite these achievements, the recent financial turmoil underscores the volatility and challenges within the alternative protein industry.

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • New glasses? The unsightly world of optometry retailing

    eye-testing

    With Medicare shaping up as a key election issue, we examine optometry retailing and how your friendly optometrist is incentivised to put glasses on your nose. Zach Szumer reports.

    Have you ever walked into an outlet like OPSM, Specsavers, Bailey Nelson, or Laubman & Pank for an eye test and left feeling like you’d been gently pressured into spending $500 on a pair of glasses?

    Well, firstly – you probably shouldn’t be too surprised. You did, after all, go to a retail outlet. Still, you might be wondering why the places Australians so often go for their eye tests – often paid for through Medicare – are the same places that want to sell you eye-wateringly expensive products.

    I mean, why don’t we also have podiatrists at Foot Locker? Or dermatologists at Aesop?

    Your correspondent has recently been granted a glimpse into this highly commercialised corner of healthcare, in which bosses impose onto optometrists a variety of targets – whether its “converting” eye tests into sales or increasing rates of certain types of tests.

    This type of pressure is reportedly causing many optometrists “significant moral distress” and some are starting to fight back.

    “Failure to improve” punished

    MWM has seen an email sent from a state director for both OPSM and Laubman & Pank, reminding optometrists that “individual optometry performance goals across the state are: conversion: 50 percent, eyecare $70 and UWDRS: 35 percent.”

    “Conversion” means the rate at which an eye test is converted into a sale of glasses and “eyecare” is the average fee for an eye test. “UWDRS” stands for ultrawide digital retinal scan – a type of test that Medicare doesn’t pay for – and is thus more profitable for the company.

    Medicare Mystery unravelled. No ‘free-fall’ in bulk billing

    The email from the state manager goes on: 

    “Please take immediate action to improve conversion over the coming weeks”.

    Failure to improve your individual KPIs to an acceptable level will lead to reduction or discontinuation of future bookings.

    OPSM and Laubman & Pank are both owned by the international optical retail giant Luxottica, which also owns Sunglass Hut, Ray-Ban, Oakley and Vogue Eyewear, and Oliver Peoples – among approx. 150 other eyewear brands. 

    MWM reached out to ask if OPSM and Laubman & Pank believe that such performance targets and the threat of punitive action have any negative effect on the delivery of quality health care. 

    We received no reply.

    “They’ll give you a talk”

    MWM has also seen screenshots from what an optometrist said was an official Specsavers document in which optometrists are told they must “consistently achieve a 60-65% plus conversion rate.” We were told that the screenshot referencing the conversion rate was from several years ago.

    A Specsavers spokesperson acknowledged the company “measures all elements of clinical care and customer service, of which conversion is one, to ensure there is an unrelenting focus on enhancing patient experiences and visual outcomes.”

    “The Specsavers brand, however, does not mandate conversion rates or sales targets for our professionals.”

    Specsavers has a joint venture partnership (JVP) model, which means that outlets are part-owned and managed by franchise owners.

    MWM has sighted recent communication by one optometrist who said Specsavers does still have conversion targets – “but it really depends on the directors” of these JVPs. If your numbers are really bad, they’ll give you a talk,” the optometrist wrote.

    In another screenshot – sent by a person MWM was told was likely a franchise director –  optometrists are informed that the stores just

    couldn’t afford” for people to come in for a vision test and then leave the store without making a purchase.

    (To protect the optometrist’s privacy, MWM has chosen not to quote the entire message.)

    Specsavers would only tell MWM that this message wasn’t sent from corporate HQ. They didn’t clarify whether the company put any pressure on joint venture partners by, for instance, offering bonuses to stores that met budgets, which would directly lead to JVPs imposing such targets themselves.

    Ramping up rebates

    MWM was also supplied with screenshots sent by Bailey Nelson state clinical leads and eyecare directors in which optometrists’ Medicare claiming patterns are compared with company averages.

    In these emails, optometrists are praised for above-average billing of certain Medicare items, recommended to look for other billing “opportunities”, and given advice to reduce billing items that can only be claimed every three years.

    One optometrist who fell below average was reminded that “there may be missed opportunities” to make certain Medicare claims and is asked to “please really look for these new signs/symptoms… or progressive disease opportunities where possible.”

    The email explicitly states that one of the reasons for doing this is to raise “clinical revenue”.

    Biggest investment in Medicare in more than 40 years

    One optometrist told MWM this type of pressure was leading optometrists to make invalid Medicare claims, referring to it as “corporate optometry rorting Medicare”.

    He said he had made multiple reports to the Medicare Integrity Taskforce that patients are, without valid clinical basis, being pushed to undergo tests that attract certain Medicare rebates. He said he has seen no evidence these claims have yet been investigated by the taskforce.

    A Bailey Nelson spokesperson told MWM that the company was “committed to delivering high-quality eye care while ensuring our optometrists practice with integrity and in full compliance with regulatory requirements.”

    “We have established Medicare guidelines to ensure our optometry team is fully aware of their rights and obligations when it comes to Medicare billing and claims. Additionally, we work closely with a Medicare consultant to support our optometrists in maintaining compliance with all claiming requirements.”

    “We take compliance seriously and have measures in place to educate and support our optometrists in making clinically appropriate decisions.”

    Significant moral distress

    In February, industry peak body Optometry Australia (OA) – released a position statement on KPIs – Key Performance Indicators for those not used to corporate jargon.

    It said “KPIs that incentivise optometrists to breach the Code or relevant laws, whether directly or indirectly, should not be used”.”

    In a statement recently given to MWM, OA CEO Skye Cappuccio said “many (optometrists) feel highly pressured in their workplace and revenue-driven targets are a central part of creating that pressure.” However, she also pointed MWM to the preliminary results from a study currently being conducted at Flinders University, partly funded by the group.

    The anonymous survey found that “over 75 percent of optometrists agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to provide high quality patient care, aligned with current evidence-based practice and responsive to the individual needs of their patients.”

    Optometrist workforce survey

    Flinders University Optometrist workforce survey

    However, it also noted

    there is significant moral distress among optometrists at work, e.g. KPIs causing role conflicts.

    OA told MWM it had sent the survey results to many large retail optometrist employers. “We are calling on them to work with us to realise change, now,” Cappuccio said.

    Some optometrists feel that OA – which represents both employers and employees – has insufficiently protected their interests and they’ve launched a unionisation drive. Some of these optometrists have also set up a Facebook group that has around 1,600 members.

    Presuming all members are registered optometrists, that’s over 20 percent of the industry in Australia.

    The admins of this group conducted their own internal survey, which received over 150 responses, many of which mention KPIs:

    Optometrist survey

    Making money

    MWM asked OA if it was aware of any other area of healthcare provision in which qualified practitioners are required to meet targets and KPIs like those mentioned above, and were told “KPIs are commonly used across healthcare settings and various industries to evaluate professional performance.”

    We put the same question to various experts. Dr Karinna Saxby, a research Fellow Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, said some hospitals implemented KPIs to access “performance-funding payments”. She continued:

    This can lead to too much emphasis placed on attaining (or even manipulating) ‘target numbers’, and too little on actual quality of patient care.

    However, in reference to retail optometry, she said “Broadly speaking, this seems more like a case of supplier induced demand; the optometrist owners get money from hitting targets – just more about making money.”

    Editors note: Are you an optometrist, optometry outlet staff member or any other kind of relevant birdie who has a little tune to whistle in our ear? Please email us in confidence.

    Bupa, Medibank give massage therapists an unhappy ending 

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Trump’s energy secretary pushed legal attack on green investing

    This story is published in partnership with The Examination, a news organization that investigates global health threats. Sign up to subscribe to The Examination’s newsletter.

    Say you’re an American worker with a retirement plan. Out of concern for the planet — or how wildfires, heat waves and hurricanes might affect your portfolio — you want the company managing your money to consider the environment in deciding where to invest.

    If one of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries gets his way, you might not have much choice. 

    Chris Wright, recently confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Energy, has been aiming to dismantle a U.S. Department of Labor rule that governs 401(k)s and other private retirement plans for more than 150 million people. The regulation allows asset managers to weigh environmental, social, and governance — or ESG — factors as long as they financially benefit retirees. 

    Wright was CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy in 2023 when the company and about two dozen states sued the agency to overturn the rule. Liberty’s case was dismissed in February by a federal judge in Texas, but the battle over ESG finance may be just beginning.  

    The fossil fuel industry and its allies have launched a multipronged assault against sustainable investing, suing asset managers and pension funds and federal regulatory agencies that oversee them. ESG investing can illegally put political ideology over the financial interests of retirees, they argue in lawsuits. The conservative policy guide Project 2025 has called for the Trump administration to overturn current rules and prohibit ESG for most retirement plans. 

    With roughly $14 trillion held in private retirement funds alone, their approach to investing has high stakes not only for individual retirees but also for the oil and gas industries. 

    In January, an investigation by The Examination found the fossil fuel industry taking advantage of sustainable finance. More than $286 billion in a lax form of green finance called sustainability-linked loans were made to companies in polluting industries — from oil and gas to mining and timber — the investigation, published in partnership with Mississippi Today and the Toronto Star, revealed. This money was often counted by banks toward their sustainable investing targets, even though in some cases companies expanded polluting activities and increased their carbon emissions while they benefited from the loans.

    But in the months since Trump’s election, fear of political fallout and legal attacks on sustainable investing have prompted many financial institutions to abandon ESG goals altogether.

    In January, Texas federal judge Reed O’Connor ruled against American Airlines in a case alleging that the airline’s 401(k) investments with BlackRock violated its duty to retirees because BlackRock considered ESG criteria in its investments and American failed to keep its own corporate interests separate from its obligations to retirement investors. Around the same time, BlackRock dropped out of the Net Zero Asset Managers, an industry group dedicated to achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

    BlackRock joined an array of leading U.S. and Canadian banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs, that recently withdrew from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. In a video appearance on February 17, Wright denounced net-zero targets as “sinister” and said they are being used to “shrink human freedom.” 

    Lisa Sachs, director of the Center on Sustainable Investment at Columbia University, said efforts to ban ESG policies seek to help the fossil fuel industry at the expense of retirees. Prohibiting ESG factors from retirement plans would put blinders on asset managers, she said, forcing them to ignore real financial risks, such as floods affecting real estate value. This would undermine their ability to make safe long-term investments for pensioners, she said.

    “This is the exact opposite of free-market ideology,” Sachs said.

    ESG faces political backlash

    Much of the legal dispute revolves around how ESG investing is defined — and experts agree the term is vague and easily manipulated.

    An ESG investment fund is one that takes environmental and social risks into account in its decision-making, not necessarily one that invests for social purposes, Sachs said. She cites Coca-Cola as a company that has a high ESG rating because assessors have deemed it does a good job managing the environmental and social risks to its business, even though its product contributes to obesity and chronic disease worldwide.

    Financial companies have misrepresented how ESG considerations are most often used, Sachs said, calling the marketing a form of greenwashing. Sachs said it is largely these misrepresentations that have put ESG policies in the crosshairs.

    “The greenwashing is what led to the political backlash,” she said.

    Jonathan Berry, the attorney for Liberty Energy in its suit against the labor department, said Liberty’s challenge doesn’t object to asset managers considering environmental factors when they are financially material. Instead, the company opposes a “tiebreaker” provision in the rule that allows asset managers to weigh non-financial ESG factors when deciding between investments that are economically equal. 

    “It cracks open the door for divided loyalties,” Berry said.

    Berry is also one of the authors of Project 2025, the policy playbook whose proposals have been reflected in many of the Trump administration’s early actions.   

    Among Project 2025’s prescriptions: removing ESG considerations from private retirement plans and a similar plan for federal employees, as well as possible enforcement actions against asset managers that have ESG policies while managing federal retirement plans. 

    But not all conservatives are on board. Some Project 2025 contributors argue in an “alternative view” section that these recommendations go too far and that workers should be able to decide on investments in their retirement plans for themselves.  

    “Even though ESG investing is often not a sound financial strategy, it is not wrong for retirement plans to offer ESG investment options,” the dissenters write.

    Berry agreed that the term ESG is “deliberately elastic.” But he said it often works the other way around: ESG investing is defined as considering environmental risks to get a foot in the door, and then used to push for political goals like divesting from fossil fuels. 

    In 2023, conservative groups sued New York City pension funds that divested from fossil fuels, alleging the funds had breached their duties to retirees; that case was dismissed last year.

    In February, the campaign against ESG suffered another setback.

    Matthew Kacsmaryk, a conservative federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump, dismissed Liberty Energy’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the labor department’s ESG rule. Liberty’s argument that the department cannot apply ESG factors when deciding between financially equal plans, he ruled, would require it to choose based on “arbitrary randomness” instead. 

    The ruling means that if the Trump administration wants to restrict financial options and prohibit ESG considerations from the retirement plans of the majority of American workers, it will likely have to act on its own, through the labor department. 

    Dan Terpstra, a retired supercomputer scientist at the University of Tennessee, has been careful over the years to ensure his retirement funds are not invested in fossil fuels. 

    An active member of the Presbyterian Church and an advocate for sustainable investing, Terpstra worries that a crackdown on ESG policies would be “forcing us away from doing the right thing.”

    The prospect of banning such plans, he said, would be “an erosion of our personal freedoms in service of a vision of America that I barely recognize.”   

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s energy secretary pushed legal attack on green investing on Mar 4, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ANZ boss Shayne Elliott challenged over Israel lobby, human rights

    ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott. Image: ANZ Facebook

    Chief executive Shayne Elliott is plausibly violating the bank’s Ethics Policy and ANZ’s human rights obligations by speaking at the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce business lunch. Michael West reports. 

    When ANZ chief Shayne Elliott addresses Queensland’s business elite at a swanky Brisbane Hotel next week, he may do so with a feeling of unease. It may even cost him some customers.

    Barrister Benedict Coyne has lodged a Human Rights Grievance under the ANZ Human Rights Grievance Mechanism in relation to Elliott’s patronage of the Israel business lobby and says the bank is lending its “imprimatur to endorsing and promoting the business, political and geopolitical interests of the AICC (and by association the Israel Australia Chamber of Commerce) … appears to be in contravention of ANZ Human Rights Statement (May 2022), ANZ Human Rights Statement (November 2021), RESPECTING PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES – ANZ’s Approach to Human Rights (September 2012), the ANZ Code of Conduct, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct”.

    Loader Loading…
    EAD Logo Taking too long?

    Reload Reload document
    | Open Open in new tab

    Proceeds from the $2025 a table business lunch go to support Israel, which is accused of plausible genocide in the International Court of Justice, and this week, via its Gaza blockade announcement, stands accused of the starvation of the entire people of Gaza.

    Barrister Benedict Coyne

    Does Elliott support this? The AICC apparently does. This is one of Australia’s premier big business lobbies and its sponsors have included Israeli weapons manufacturers such as Elbit Systems whose weapons were involved in the assassination of Australian Zomi Frankcom and other aid workers.

    Chair of the AICC is Jillian Segal, who is also a vocal supporter of the government of Israel as well as Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism.

    Last month, it was reported in these pages that the AICC and its associated entity in Israel, the Israeli Australia Chamber of Commerce (IACC) were funding illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian  Territory (OPT) and were associated with Israeli weapons manufacturers involved in war crimes, atrocities and what the International Court of Justice  (ICJ) has declared to be a “plausible” genocide in Gaza.

    The AICC describes itself as “Australia’s pre-eminent international Chamber of Commerce and one of the country’s most prestigious and active national business organisations,” with over 1,000 member companies. 

    Investigation: elite Australian big business group monetises Israeli war machine

    According to the Coyne Human Rights Grievance lodged with ANZ:

    “The AICC’s Israeli associate, the Israel-Australia Chamber of Commerce (IACC), is chaired by Major General Ido Nehushtan, president of weapons contractor Boeing Israel and a former commander of the Israeli Air Force. 

    “The IACC profile on Guidestar, which is the regulating body for Israeli charities, shows that the organisation is funding Israel’s illegal settlement program. Up to 35% of funds are going to areas which Israel calls the Judea and Samaria region, the Northern  District, and Jerusalem District (also known as ‘Greater Jerusalem’). 

    “Judea and Samaria is Israel’s name for most of its settlements in the West Bank. 

    “While the Northern District includes areas inside Israel’s internationally recognised borders, it also includes the illegally occupied  Syrian Golan Heights.”

    The Chamber is, perhaps with the exception of the Business Council of Australia, this country’s preeminent big business lobby;  holding regular junkets, summits at lunches at ritzy five-star hotel ballrooms where business leaders deliver their speeches before  packed audiences spending thousands of dollars per table. 

    It is the premier networking organisation for Israel in Australia and high-tech is at the vanguard of the lobbying. The ‘Start-Up  Nation’ begins with the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF) intelligence units. 

    The Chamber’s objective is to promote collaboration between the two countries. It describes itself as “Australia’s pre-eminent  international Chamber of Commerce and one of the country’s most prestigious and active national business organisations”, with  over 1,000 member companies. 

    ANZ declined to respond to questions for this story.

    Productivity tsar Danielle Wood ducks for cover on Israel promotion

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Banana slice business thrives in Cambodia | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Banana slice business thrives in Cambodia | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Fleet delays the high price of Qantas soaring profits

    Qantas ageing fleet

    Qantas will unveil fabulous profits at its half-year results today while it continues to prioritise its share price over customers, staff and fleet renewal. Michael Sainsbury reports.

    A Qantas customer recently told this correspondent, “I was in the Qantas First Class Lounge in Los Angeles and ordered a hamburger but was told there were no buns”. It’s an apt reflection of the razzle-dazzle of the airline’s profits which are again enormous but built on the backs of screwing down workers’ wages, illegal out-sourcing, under-investment in its fleet and a decline in its onboard experience.

    The cracks are becoming more evident. Pilots, engineers and other Qantas insiders who spoke to MWM said that management appeared “rudderless”: consumed with “providing band-aid solutions” as the airline tries to sit out a multi-year wait for new aircraft to improve both its performance, product and cost base.

    Qantas pilots strike. The more things change, the more they stay the same

    After previous chief executive Alan Joyce cancelled plans for Boeing 787s in 2018, the company waited another five years to order new aircraft. Only a handful have arrived and most models are running late due to problems at Airbus and Boeing.

    Five of the 29 A220s that have been delivered are suffering from a shortage of trained flight deck crew as well as well-documented engine and other operational problems.

    Ageing aircraft

    Qantas’ domestic and international fleets continue to deteriorate amid growing pressure from Virgin and international rivals with much newer aircraft and a better experience. And as its planes have struggled to stay in the air, with engines being a key problem, Qantas’ capacity has gone backwards. According to the ACCC’s February 2025 report on domestic airline competition in Australia, Qantas experienced a 4.7% decrease in seat capacity compared to December 2019.

    Like cars and people, the older the aircraft, the more maintenance it requires. Qantas’ decision in recent decades to outsource an increasing amount of maintenance work to Los Angeles,Singapore, Bangkok, Manila, Abu Dhabi, and Dresden means that there are often long delays in getting its engines and planes fixed.

    “There’s two ways of sensibly operating aircraft; the first one uses minimum and cheap and nasty maintenance and turns over aircraft fast with the associated leasing costs, etc being high,” a Qantas engineer told MWM.

    “The second one is to amortise your fleet by operating them longer with lower leasing costs but high maintenance costs, which is required to keep those jets flying safely. That’s how Qantas used to operate, aircraft out of Heavy Maintenance were literally as good or better than new since we corrected all fuckups by Boeing.”

    “This approach is very expensive, though, and no airline can afford it anymore due to the flying public expecting lower ticket prices.”

    What Qantas seems to be attempting is to operate very old aircraft with cheap nasty maintenance: basically, combine the two profit maximising strategies.

    “This isn’t going well,” MWM’s source concluded.

    MWM has learned that Qantas’ long haul workhorse fleet of A330 aircraft, which have an average age of 20 years, is in a dire state. As of last Sunday, four of the aircraft were grounded, and several more have recently been out of service for up to two weeks.

    A clear sign of the A330 troubles came earlier this week when Qantas suspended flights between Melbourne and Delhi between June and October 2025, saying the route was temporarily becoming a “seasonal” service. Qantas told travel agents that  the cancellation was “due to some current fleet and operational requirements.”

    Domestic capacity crisis

    Some A330s were recently brought from international routes onto domestic legs to try and bolster capacity because of the growing problems with the ageing 737 fleet. An investigation by MWM showed that on Feb 24, six 737s were grounded, and at least six others were flying only part loads (5 hours or less).

    Domestically, Qantas’ capacity crisis has allowed an airline that controls 63.6% of the market through its Qantas mainline, regional QantasLink and Jetstar to charge higher prices to offset fewer seats.

    The company continues to cut domestic flights, and this week’s ACCC quarterly aviation report confirmed the airline’s capacity squeeze and domestic airfares rose 13.3% between June and September, and “average revenue per passenger spiked in October and November 2024.”

    The state of the Qantas fleet is underscored in the latest figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport Research Economics show that Virgin has trounced Qantas two months running with cancellation rate of less than 1% of flights against more than 2% for Qantas, QantasLink and Jetstar.

    Virgin Australia has outperformed the Qantas Group in recent months, showcasing improved reliability and punctuality across its network.

    The Qantas Group has failed to match Virgin’s performance. In December 2024, Qantas recorded the highest cancellation rate at 2.7%, followed by Jetstar at 1.5%.. The trend continued into January 2025, with Qantas cancelling 2.8% of flights, QantasLink 2.1%, and Jetstar 2.3%.

    On-time performance figures for January 2025 further highlight Virgin’s improvement.

    On-time performance, January 2025

    AirlineOn-time arrivalsOn-time departures
    Qantas Link77.9%78.3%
    Virgin77.1%78.0%
    Qantas72.3%71.6%
    Jetstar69.7%66.8%
    Source: BITRE

    While its grip on the domestic market means that poor fleet management and shrinking capacity actually work in its favour – although not for customers, it’s a different story internationally.

    Qantas has effectively outsourced its European business to codeshare partner Emirates, only flying two flights a day to London. Last year, it added one four times a week from Perth to Paris (QF33), but this has unfolded as a disaster, with passenger loads often below 50%, according to Qantas internal data seen by MWM. QF33 was cancelled on Wednesday.

    Insiders say management is mulling whether the route will either be pulled altogether or handed off to another “wet lease” similar to current Finnair aircraft and crews conducting QF flights between Australia and Singapore/Bangkok. Hudson said to be exploring more wet leases with Finnair to destinations like Japan andHonolulu as her international fleet shrinks and is redeployed.

    The Limping Roo is also being bested on the once lucrative US route by United and Delta which have newer planes, vastly improved cabin service and growing frequency into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane – and fewer cancellations.

    QF93 from Melbourne to Los Angeles did not fly Tuesday and Wednesday this week. Lucky passengers would have been flown to Sydney or Brisbane for their flights instead.

    Hawaiian Airlines and Fiji Airways, along with Japanese and Korean airlines, are fiercely competitive in price and service.

    Enter Qatar Airways

    The latest blow to Qantas international business came in On Feb. 14 when the competition regulator handed draft approval to Virgin for its wet lease deal with Qatar Airways. This will see Virgin utilise Qatar’s state-of-the-art aircraft as well as staff and cabin service from an airline rated number one or number two in a range of recent airline surveys. Qantas unsuccessfully lobbied hard against the deal.

    Hudson is at least said to be in the market for more engines for her B737 and A330s. She also has the option to bolster her fleet with younger, more reliable second-hand planes. China Southern Airlines recently put 10 Boeing 787s up for sale. But Hudson knows any such spending would immediately hit its share price – and executive bonuses.

    Hefty profits notwithstanding, this sorry state of affairs for Qantas’ long-suffering passengers is the final crescendo of Alan Joyce’s private equity model.

    Vanessa Hudson has now been in charge for18 months, and right now, her employees see no evidence of any plan to right the listing ship.

    No buns, no engines, and no planes.

    New Qantas chief Vanessa Hudson confronts a turbulent ride from shareholders at AGM

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • How Israeli propaganda filters into NZ media – drop it, says Mediawatch

    COMMENTARY: By Saige England

    Mediawatch on RNZ today strongly criticised Stuff and YouTube among other media for using Israeli propaganda’s “Outbrain” service.

    Outbrain is a company founded by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) military and its technology can be tracked back to a wealthy entrepreneur, which in this case could be a euphemism for a megalomaniac.

    He uses the metaphor of a “dome”, likening it to the dome used in warfare.

    Outbrain, which publishes content on New Zealand media, picks up what’s out there and converts and distorts it to support Israel. It twists, it turns, it deceives the reader.

    Presenter Colin Peacock of RNZ’s Mediawatch programme today advised NZ media to ditch the propaganda service.

    Outbrain uses the media in the following way. The content user such as Stuff pays Outbrain and Outbrain pays the user, like Stuff.

    “Both parties make money when users click on the content,” said Peacock.

    ‘Digital Iron Dome’
    The content on the Stuff website came via “Digital Iron Dome” named after the State of Genociders’ actual defence system. It is run by a tech entrepreneur quoted on Mediawatch:

    “Just like a physical iron dome that scans the open air and watches for any missiles . . . the digital iron dome knows how to scan the internet. We know how to buy media. Pro-Israeli videos and articles and images inside the very same articles going against Israel,” says the developer of the propaganda “dome” machine.

    Peacock said the developer had stated that the digital dome delivered “pro-Jewish”* messages to more than 100 million people worldwide on platforms like Al Jazeera, CNN — and last weekend on Stuff NZ — and said this information went undetected as pro-Israel material, ensuring it reached, according to the entrepreneur: “The right audience without interference.”

    According to Wikipedia, Outbrain was founded by Yaron Galai and Ori Lahav, officers in the Israeli Navy. Galai sold his company Quigo to AOL in 2007 for $363 million. Lahav worked at an online shopping company acquired by eBay in 2005.

    The company is headquartered in New York with global offices in London, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Cologne, Gurugram, Paris, Ljubljana, Munich, Milan, Madrid, Tokyo, São Paulo, Netanya, Singapore, and Sydney.

    Peacock pointed out that other advocacy organisations had already been buying and posting content, there was nothing new about this with New Zealand news media.

    But — and this is important — the Media Council ruled in 2017 that Outbrain content was the publisher’s responsibility: that the news media in NZ were responsible for promoted links that were offered to their readers.

    “Back then publishers at Stuff and the Herald said they would do more to oversee the content, with Stuff stating it is paid promoted content,” said Peacock, in his role as the media watchdog.

    Still ‘big money business’
    “But this is also still a big money business and the outfits using these tools are getting much bigger exposure from their arrangements with news publishers such as Stuff,” he said.

    He pointed out that the recently appointed Outbrain boss for Australia New Zealand and Singapore, Chris Oxley, had described Outbrain as “a leader in digital media connecting advertisers with premium audiences in contextually relevant environments”.

    The watchdog Mediawatch said that news organisations should drop Outbrain.

    “Media environments where news and neutrality are important aren’t really relevant environments for political propaganda that’s propagated by online opportunists who know how to make money out of it and also to raise funds while they are at it, ” said Peacock.

    “These services like Outbrain are sometimes called ‘recommendation engines’ but our recommendation to news media is don’t use them for the sake of the trust of the people you say you want to earn and keep: the readers,” said Peacock.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

    * Being “pro-Jewish” should not be equated with being pro-genocide nor should antisemitism be levelled at Jews who are against this genocide. The propaganda from Outbrain does a disservice to Palestinians and also to those Jewish people who support all human rights — the right of Palestinians to life and the right to live on their land.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • China confirms ‘in-depth exchange’ with Cook Islands as New Zealand faces criticism for bullying

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist in Avarua, Rarotonga

    China has confirmed details of its meeting with Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown for the first time, saying Beijing “stands ready to have an in-depth exchange” with the island nation.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters during his regular press conference that Brown’s itinerary, from February 10-16, would include attending the closing ceremony of the Asian Winter Games in Harbin as well as meeting with Premier of the State Council Li Qiang.

    Guo also confirmed that Brown and his delegation had visited Shanghai and Shandong as part of the state visit.

    “The Cook Islands is China’s cooperation partner in the South Pacific,” he said.

    “Since the establishment of diplomatic ties, the two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development.”

    Guo told reporters that the relationship between the two countries was elevated to comprehensive strategic partnership in 2018.

    “Our friendly cooperation is rooted in profound public support and delivers tangibly to the two peoples.

    ‘New progress in bilateral relations’
    “Through Prime Minister Brown’s visit, China stands ready to have an in-depth exchange of views with the Cook Islands on our relations and work for new progress in bilateral relations.”

    Brown said on Wednesday that he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit, which has created significant debate on the relationship with Cook Islands and New Zealand.

    He has said that the “comprehensive strategic partnership” deal with China is expected to be signed today, and does not include a security component.

    Cook Islanders are divided over Brown’s decision to keep Aotearoa in the dark about the contents of the agreement it intends to sign with Beijing.

    While on one hand, the New Zealand government has been urged not to overreact, on the other the Cook Islands opposition want Brown and his government out.

    Locals in Rarotonga have accused New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters of being a “bully”, while others are planning to protest against Brown’s leadership.

    A local resident, Tim Buchanan, said Peters has “been a bit bullying”.

    He said Peters had overacted and the whole issue had been “majorly” blown out of proportion.

    ‘It doesn’t involve security’
    “It does not involve our national security, it does not involve borrowing a shit load of money, so what is your concern about?

    “Why do we need to consult him? We have been a sovereign nation for 60 years, and all of a sudden he’s up in arms and wanted to know everything that we’re doing”

    Brown previously told RNZ Pacific that he had assured Wellington “over and over” that there “will be no impact on our relationship and there certainly will be no surprises”.

    However, New Zealand said it should have seen the text prior to Brown leaving for China.

    Cook Islands opposition MP and leader of the Cook Islands United Party Teariki Heather filed a vote filed a vote of no confidence motion against the Prime Minister
    Cook Islands opposition MP and leader of the Cook Islands United Party Teariki Heather . . . he has filed a vote filed a vote of no confidence motion against Prime Minister Mark Brown. Image: Caleb Fotheringham/RNZ Pacific

    Vote of no confidence
    Cook Islands opposition MP Teariki Heather said he did not want anything to change with New Zealand.

    “The response from the government and Winston Peters and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that’s really what concerns us, because they are furious,” said Heather, who is the leader of Cook Islands United Party.

    Heather has filed a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister and has been the main organiser for a protest against Brown’s leadership that will take place on Monday morning local time.

    He is expecting about 1000 people to turn up, about one in every 15 people who reside in the country.

    Opposition leader Tina Browne is backing the motion and will be at the protest which is also about the Prime Minister’s push for a local passport, which he has since dropped.

    With only eight opposition members in the 24-seat parliament, Browne said the motion of no confidence is not about the numbers.

    “It is about what are we the politicians, the members of Parliament, going to do about the two issues and for us, the best way to demonstrate our disapproval is to vote against it in Parliament, whether the members of Parliament join us or not that’s entirely up to them.”

    The 2001 document argument
    Browne said that after reading the constitution and the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration, she agreed with Peters that the Cook Islands should have first consulted New Zealand on the China deal.

    “Our prime minister has stated that the agreement does not affect anything that he is obligated to consult with New Zealand. I’m very suspicious of that because if there is nothing offensive, why the secrecy then?

    “I would have thought, irrespective, putting aside everything, that our 60 year relationship with New Zealand, who’s been our main partner warrants us to keep that line open for consultation and that’s even if it wasn’t in [the Joint Centenary Declaration].”

    Other locals have been concerned by the lack of transparency from their government to the Cook Islands people.

    But Cook Islands’ Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana said that is not how these deals were done.

    “I think the people have to understand that in regards to agreements of this nature, there’s a lot of negotiations until the final day when it is signed and the Prime Minister is very open that the agreements will be made available publicly and then people can look at it.”

    Cook Islands Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana
    Cook Islands Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana . . . Image: Caleb Fotheringham/RNZ Pacific

    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the government would wait to see what was in the agreement before deciding if any punishment should be imposed.

    With the waiting, Elikana said he was concerned.

    “We are worried but we want to see what will be their response and we’ve always reiterated that our relationship is important to us and our citizenship is really important to us, and we will try our best to remain and retain that,” Elikana said.

    He did not speculate about the vote of no confidence motion.

    “I think we just leave it to the day but I’m very confident in our team and very confident in our Prime Minister.”

    ‘Cook Islands does a lot for New Zealand’
    Cultural leader and carver Mike Tavioni said he did not know why everyone was so afraid of the Asian superpower.

    “I do not know why there is an issue with the Cook Islands and New Zealand, as long as Mark [Brown] does not commit this country to a deal with China with strings attached to it,” he said.

    Tavioni said the Cook Islands does a lot for New Zealand also, with about 80,000 Cook Islanders living in New Zealand and contributing to it’s economy.

    “The thing about consulting, asking for permission, it does not go down well because our relationship with Aotearoa should be taken into consideration.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • French Overseas Minister Manuel Valls to visit Nouméa for key political talks

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls has announced he will travel to New Caledonia later this month to pursue talks on the French territory’s political future.

    These discussions on February 22 follow preliminary talks held last week in Paris in “bilateral” mode with a wide range of political stakeholders.

    The talks, which included pro-independence and pro-France parties, were said to have “allowed to restore a climate of trust between France and New Caledonia’s politicians”.

    Those meetings contributed to “a better understanding” of “everyone’s expectations” and “clarify everyone’s respective projects”, Valls said.

    Between February 4 and 9, Valls said he had met “at least twice” with delegations from all six parties and movements represented in New Caledonia’s Congress.

    The main goal was to resume the political process and allow everyone to “project themselves into the future” after the May 2024 riots.

    The riots caused 14 dead, hundreds of injured, arson and looting of hundreds of businesses and an estimated damage of some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).

    ‘Touched all topics’
    “We have touched on all topics, extensively and without any taboo, including the events related to the riots that broke out in New Caledonia in May 2024.”

    Valls said in this post-riot situation, “everyone bears their own responsibilities, but the French State may also have a part of responsibility for what happened a few months ago”.

    New Caledonia’s key economic leaders Mimsy Daly and David Guyenne with French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls – 8 February 2025 - PHOTO MEDEF NC
    New Caledonia’s key economic leaders Mimsy Daly and David Guyenne with French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls. Image: MEDEF NC/RNZ

    At the weekend, as part of the week-long talks, Valls and French Public Accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin hosted a three-hour session dedicated to New Caledonia’s “devastated” economy.

    High on the agenda of the conference were crucial subjects, such as France’s assistance package, the need to reform and reduce costs in New Caledonia (including in the public service workforce) — as well as key sectors such as the health, tourism sectors and the nickel mining and processing industry — which has been facing an unprecedented crisis for the past two years.

    Unemployment benefits
    There was also a significant chapter dedicated to the duration of special unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs due to the riots’ destruction.

    Another sensitive point raised was the long and difficult process for businesses (especially very small, small and medium) damaged and destroyed for the same reasons to get insurance companies to pay compensation.

    Most insurance companies represented in New Caledonia have, since the May 2024 riots, cancelled the “riot risk” from their insurance coverage.

    This has so far made it impossible for riot-damaged businesses to renew their insurance cover under the same terms as before.

    French assistance to post-riot recovery in New Caledonia includes a 1 billion euros (NZ$1.8 billion) loan ceiling and a special fund of some 192 million euros (NZ$350 million) dedicated to the reconstruction of public buildings, mainly schools.

    New Caledonia’s students are returning to school next week as part of the new academic year.

    French public accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin speaking
    French Public Accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin speaking from Paris to New Caledonia audience via a vision conference during the Economic Forum last Saturday. Image: NC la 1ère TV/RNZ

    Economy and politics closely intertwined
    Valls stressed once again that “there cannot be an economic recovery without a political compromise, just like there cannot be any lasting political solution without economic recovery”.

    “(France) needs to be there so that the economic slump (caused by the riots) does not turn into a social disaster which, in turn, would exacerbate political fractures”.

    “The government of France will be on your side. No matter what happens. We are absolutely taking charge of our responsibilities.”

    The “economic Forum” was also the first time delegations from all political tendencies, even though they did not talk to each other directly, were at least sitting in the same room.

    “Thank you all for being here, this is a beautiful picture of New Caledonia. Maybe the economy can do more than politics”, Valls told the Economic Forum last Saturday.

    Next step: ‘trilateral’ meetings
    The next step, in New Caledonia, is for Valls to attempt holding “trilateral” meetings (involving all parties, pro and anti-independence and France) around the same table, which was not the case in Paris last week.

    The format of those Nouméa talks, however, “remains to be determined”.

    Valls said he could stay in New Caledonia for as long as one week because, he said, “I want to take time”, including to not only meet politicians, but also economic and civil society stakeholders.

    The 62-year-old French minister, who is also a former Prime Minister, as a political adviser to the then French Socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard, was involved in the signing of the Matignon Accord, signed in 1988 between France, pro-independence and pro-France parties, which effectively put an end to half a decade of quasi civil war in the French Pacific archipelago.

    He also stressed that any future discussion would be based on the “foundation and basis” of the Matignon and Nouméa Accords which, he said, was “the only possible way”.

    The Nouméa Accord, signed in 1998 between the same parties, paved the way for a gradual transfer of powers from France to New Caledonia as well as a status of wider autonomy, often described in the legal jargon as “sui generis”.

    Until now, under the Nouméa Accord, the key powers remaining to be transferred by France were foreign affairs (shared with New Caledonia), currency, law and order, defence and justice.

    New Caledonia’s authorities have not requested the implementation of the transfer for another three portfolios: higher education, research, audiovisual communication and the administration of communes.

    An exit protocol
    But the 1998 deal also included an exit protocol, depending on the results of three referendums on self-determination.

    Those referendums were held in 2018, 2020 and 2021 and they all yielded a majority of votes against independence.

    However, New Caledonia’s pro-independence movement largely boycotted the third poll and has since contested its validity.

    Pro-France and pro-independence camps hold radically different views on how New Caledonia should evolve in its post-Nouméa Accord (1998) future status.

    The options mentioned so far by local parties range from a quick independence (a five-year process to begin in September 2025 following the anticipated signature of a “Kanaky Accord”) to some sort of yet undefined “shared sovereignty” that could imply an “independence-association”, or a status of “associated state” for New Caledonia.

    Pro-France parties, however, have previously stated they were determined to push for New Caledonia to remain part of France and, in corollary, that New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and Loyalty Islands) should be granted more separate powers, a formula sometimes described as “internal federalism” but criticised by pro-independence parties as a form of “apartheid”.

    Complicating factor
    Another complicating factor is that both sides — pro-independence and pro-France camps — are also divided between moderate and radical components.

    Last week, during question time in Parliament, Valls expressed concern at the current polarised situation: “People talk about racism, civil war. A common and shared project can only be built through dialogue.

    “The (previously signed, respectively in 1988 and 1998) Matignon and Nouméa Accords, both bearing the prospect of a decolonisation process, are the foundation of our discussions. I would even say they are part of my DNA,” the minister said.

    Referring to any future outcome of the current talks, he said they will have to be “inventive, ambitious, bold in order to build a compromise and do away with any radical position, all radical positions, in order to offer a common project for New Caledonia, for its youth, for concord and for peace”.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Dark Money. Hard-right Advance targets Greens, Teals with $14m warchest

    Advance Australia

    Hard-right lobby group Advance Australia has amassed a $14m warchest to target Greens and Teals at the Federal Election. Michael West reports.

    The latest political donations data released by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) reveal that right-wing lobby group Advance Australia has tripled its receipts since 22/23, now holding over $15 million for the 23/24 period. 

    Advance Australia lobbies against renewable energy and for Israel. It has been outed for ‘astroturfing’, running fake grassroots campaigns.

    Only $1.1 million of this amount has disclosed donor details, leaving a substantial $14 million in “dark money” — that is, funds from anonymous sources.

    The largest disclosed donor is the Cormack Foundation Pty Ltd, the Liberal Party’s endowment fund, contributing $500,000. Additionally, Roger Gillespie, the founder of Baker’s Delight, and his wife Leslie, each donated $50,000. Gillespie has a history of donating to both Advance and the Liberal Party.

    The recent gathering at Tony Abbott’s office, attended by notable figures like Maurice Newman, Warren Mundine, and Peter Dutton, highlights the close ties between the Liberal Party’s right wing and Advance Australia.

    Abbott, Mundine, Adler

    Many of these individuals play key roles within Advance: Maurice Newman as an early driver, Tony Abbott as an advisor, Warren Mundine as a spokesperson, and David Adler, of the Australian Jewish Association (AJA), as a founding board member and advisor.

    Advance Australia astroturfers | Scam of the Week

    Advance Australia is actively involved in the Victorian by-election for the seat of Prahran, campaigning to put the Greens last.

    Leaked Advance group chat in Prahran by-election campaign

    While supporting the Liberal candidate, they are also collaborating with former Labor MP Tony Lupton, who has since denounced Labor and accused it of being weak on anti-semitism.

    Lupton’s wife, Julie Szego, has written about anti-semitism, and her views have been promoted by the Israel lobby. This collaboration between Lupton and Advance could be the first instance of a senior Labor figure associating with the pro-Netanyahu lobby.

    Advance targets Greens and Teals

    Advance’s current activities are seen as preparation for the upcoming federal election, where their primary targets are the Greens and Teal independents.

    In the event of a Dutton minority government, Advance aims to have One Nation, Libertarians, and compliant independents on the cross-bench, potentially giving them significant influence in the political landscape.

    Overall, Advance Australia’s big rise in funding, coupled with its close ties to the Liberal Party’s right wing and its active involvement in elections, raises concerns about the influence of “dark money” and the organisation’s role in shaping Australian politics.

    The lack of transparency surrounding a large portion of their funding and their strategic targeting of specific political parties and candidates highlight the potential impact of Advance Australia on the future of Australian democracy. And the question of foreign interference is likely to arise as per the “anti-Israel” platform revealed in the group chat above.

    And Labor

    Due to the opacity of the AEC data and the complex structures of donor orgs, it takes time to search for the identity of donors, for all parties. Therefore this story has focused on Advance.

    On the Labor side, things are equally opaque. We did pick up however that Abelshore, a company owned by coal giant Glencore, donated another $6.8m to the Mining and Energy Union (formerly CFMEU).

    Labor’s $39M Political Loophole | The West Report

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Sportsbet does Janus double-head job on ATO, ASIC, Labor

    Janus the Roman god of Doorways. Image: Tony Grist, Wikipedia

    As the Government junked its promise to reform gambling ads before the Election, Michael West looks at the two faces of Sportsbet.

    This article is the third in the Michael West Media multinational tax dodging series for 2025. Janus, the two-headed Roman God is the patron of this series.

    Janus could see forwards and backwards and inside and outside using his two heads. The practices of this ‘Roman god of doorways and transitions’ are worshipped by the multinational tax fraternity in Australia which strives to give information to the Tax Office with one head while the other head gives exactly the opposite information to the Federal Parliament and the public.

    Our first article, Foxtel: transactions you can’t trust, tax evasion you can’t ignore, revealed that Foxtel generated $14B income over 5 years with zero income tax paid.

    With one head, the Janus-faced Foxtel broadcasters of Sky News are demonise welfare bludgers. With the other head, Foxtel revels in corporate welfare bludging itself by cheating Australia’s tax base.

    Our second article, News Corp lies to Parliament in lobbying putsch to change media laws exposed the activities of Foxtel’s other head which tells the Government, straight-faced, how they pay income tax while Netflix does not.

    Our third article here is about Irish bookmaker Sportsbet whose one head goes out to $9,000 lunches with Communications Minister Michelle Rowland while its other head is busy depleting the bank accounts of its customers.

    The Sportsbet business model relies on the chance that their customer base is always about to lose. On average, Sportsbet’s business causes its customers to experience financial losses. Sportsbet claims that losing money is a source of entertainment for these people.

    With one head, Sportsbet’s website proffers a commitment to safer gambling. With another head, Sportsbet promotes the notion that problem gambling is fun. A recent class action against Janus-Sportsbet alleges that it actively promoted an illegal live betting service resulting in millions of dollars of losses to customers.

    A $600m black hole

    Sportsbet also has form with its Tax Office storytelling because $600m of the company’s wagering income is mysteriously absent from its tax returns.

    Sportsbet reports its net wagering income to the ATO. But Janus-like, it reports much lower net wagering income to the ATO than the income (revenue) that it discloses to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

    How much lower is the net wagering income reported to the ATO?  Based on MWM calculations there is an income deficit of $0.6 billion over the 5-year period 2019 to 2023. That’s half a billion in net wagering income that seems to have gone missing from Sportsbet’s filings with the ATO.

    The table below shows the numbers.

    Source: Wally the Chartered Accountant

    There are plausible reasons why total income reported to the ATO might differ from revenue reported to ASIC. These reasons do not appear sufficient to explain the $0.6 billion deficit.

    The deficit is $1.4B before GST because GST is not included in total income reported to the ATO but it is included in revenue.

    With one head, Janus-faced Sportsbet recognises revenue gross with the GST included. With another head, Sportsbet declares in its statutory financial reports that it complies Australian Accounting Standards including this one: “Revenues . . shall be recognised net of the amount of goods and services tax (GST)”.

    Net of fishing nets

    Perhaps Sportsbet’s audit firm, KPMG, might explain Sportsbet’s duplicity or maybe they just need to do some extra training on the meaning of “net of the GST”.

    The word “net” as used in accounting standards is not like a fishing net. It doesn’t mean include it, or catch it in the net and drag it in. Net of the GST means not including the GST.

    Another reason for the deficit might be that Sportsbet recognises revenue for outstanding bets whereas total income reported to the ATO is limited to realised bets, that is, realised gains and losses from betting activities.

    Outstanding bets on December 31 (Sportsbet’s financial year-end) could include bets on which football club will win the Premier League title in the United Kingdom, which is usually determined in May each year.

    Janus

    Janus

    Outstanding bets become realised bets when the gambled-on event has occurred. A deficit of $0.6B is highly unlikely to be explained by outstanding bets. This is because over a five-year period, outstanding bets should wash out to a significant extent.

    So, the question remains, why is there a $0.6B deficit in the income that Sportsbet reports to the ATO when compared to the income it reports to ASIC?

    Sportsbet’s latest marketing campaign champions the AI that customers can use to make bets. AI being referred to here as the “actual intelligence” of other punters (including punters that lose) rather than artificial intelligence. We are encouraged to bet with Brad, even if Brad might be the biggest loser of all time.

    AI is Artificial Income

    When it comes to Sportsbet’s tax affairs though AI would be better described as “artificial income”.

    Has anyone at the ATO cast a sceptical eye over Janus-faced Sportsbet’s income or are staff too busy preparing briefs of evidence to prosecute whistleblower Richard Boyle?

    ATO and ASIC formguide

    Check out the form guide ATO and ASIC!

    Start with the Parliamentary Report of June 2023 entitled You win some, you lose more which finds that:

    • Sportsbet is grooming children and young adults to gamble.
    • Sportsbet is wreaking havoc in Australian communities with saturation advertising.
    • Sportsbet has a business model of shunning winners and targeting gamblers that lose.

    Next is Sportsbet’s accounting practices including:

    • Revenues gross including GST.
    • Cost of sales gross including GST.
    • Nondescript items in the statement of cash flows.
    • Fantastical goodwill recognised to inflate share capital.

    And perhaps the biggest red flag of all: Sportsbet has a propensity to stroke the egos of Labor party heavyweights for commercial advantage. Janus-faced Sportsbet likes to offer lavish meals of praise to heavyweights like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Birthday Girl Communications Minister Michelle Rowland under the guise of engagement.

    These meals are equivalent to giving bonus bets to politicians. But not only do the politicians get fed, the media companies which rely on gambling advertising get fatter too.

    Here at MWM, we would prefer to honour the late Labor party member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy; a Labor party stalwart. She was the driving force behind the Parliamentary Report of June 2023 which espoused reform to gambling advertising.

    Peta Murphy would be horrified that more than 18 months after the release of her Report, the Labor government is yet to respond to it. Now, it has been shelved till after the Election.

    Should the ATO and ASIC trust what Janus-faced Sportsbet has been telling them about their income? Based on the actual intelligence in this article, Brad says no.

    Sportbet doesn’t just groom children with gambling ads, it grooms regulators too

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Lab-grown meat rebrands itself to woo Trump — and RFK Jr.

    The chicken before me had neither lived nor died, but it did look really tasty.

    Five stories up, in a sunny event space tucked away in New York City’s Little Italy earlier this month, chefs had been busy preparing chicken lo mein noodles, empanadas, and shawarma. But the poultry that went into these dishes hadn’t come from a farm — it was grown from animal cells in a lab. Local restaurateurs and chefs mingling around the room had been invited to sample the dishes by Upside Foods, a leading brand in the lab-grown meat business. This was essentially a big pitch meeting: Upside Foods is working on launching a new product called “shreds” — similar to boneless, skinless, shredded chicken meat — and hoping to convince restaurants to buy it once it hits the market. 

    A few attendees, according to Upside Foods Chief Operating Officer Amy Chen, confessed they were nervous to try the lab-grown chicken, which is genetically identical to regular chicken but grown in a bioreactor. “I think for consumers, the idea of cultivated meat is quite different,” Chen said, using another term for lab-grown protein. “And it takes a minute for you to wrap your head around it. But I came from the food world, and I know that tasting is believing.”

    And what tasting Upside Foods’ chicken will have you believe is that it is honest-to-god chicken. The chicken shawarma I tried was juicy and tender, with a taste and texture that were basically indistinguishable from the real thing. This could cut both ways: The breaded chicken strips atop the lo mein noodles tasted like, well, regular chicken tenders — totally average.

    Upside Foods hopes its products will be the future of eating meat. But for all the company’s bullish messaging, an inconvenient detail hung over the showcase: Upside Foods has not yet received federal approval to sell its shredded chicken. And because President Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a vocal critic of lab-grown meat — to lead the agency that oversees the Food and Drug Administration, no one knows what will happen to that clearance process now. 

    Kennedy has openly questioned the safety of lab-grown meat on X, formerly Twitter, calling it “ultra-processed.” Although he has not been confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, his nomination has been worrying for the U.S. lab-grown meat industry, which has yet to sell its goods in American supermarkets. 

    But experts say there may be a number of opportunities for lab-grown meat under a second Trump administration. Industry leaders argue that cultivated meat is good for business, consumers, and even national security — and certain high-profile Republicans agree.  

    Chef Dominique Crenn uses a spatula to lift a small piece of lab-grown chicken on a cutting board.
    Chef Dominique Crenn, whose restaurant Bar Crenn previously partnered with Upside Foods, arranges lab-grown chicken on a cutting board. Upside Foods

    The promise of lab-grown meat is that it would reduce our reliance on growing animals in factory-farming conditions, which pollute the air and waterways on top of emitting lots of greenhouse gases. Agriculture, by some estimates, accounts for up to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Within the agriculture category, livestock is the leading source of emissions. Scientists say it will be impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) without reducing the emissions — particularly methane — that stem from industrial animal agriculture. 

    The problem is that studies suggest that today’s methods of producing cultivated meat have a higher environmental impact than that of beef. Advocates of cultivated meat say that the industry simply needs more investment to scale up and become energy-efficient.

    Lab-grown meat falls into the “alternative protein” category, which includes plant-based burgers that bleed like real beef and has gotten heaps of attention from investors, nonprofits, and policymakers in recent years. That attention hasn’t always been good. Pitting lab-grown meat against farmers and the beef industry, Florida and Alabama preemptively banned the sale of cultivated meat last year. (Upside Foods sued the state of Florida in response, arguing its measure is unconstitutional.) 

    But industry leaders say they’re working on a feat of bioengineering that will put the United States ahead of other countries trying to grow their cultivated meat industries, such as Israel and Singapore. 

    “That’s something that I spend a lot of time talking about now: the economic potential of cultivated meat. How many jobs can we create?” said Suzi Gerber, head of the Association for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation, a cultured meat trade group. She noted that growing meat under laboratory conditions pulls in resources and workers from other fields: It requires agricultural and manufacturing expertise, and it will employ engineers and rely on farmers. (The cells used to grow Upside Foods’ chicken, for example, come from fertilized chicken eggs, after all.) Investing in lab-grown meat ensures “that American ingenuity is the front, that the American economy keeps evolving, and that we don’t fall behind the rest of the world and their bio-economies,” Gerber said. 

    These arguments have helped lab-grown meat attract supporters from areas not usually associated with vegan-friendly fares. Vivek Ramaswamy, the former Republican presidential candidate and Trump supporter, has come out in support of cultivated meat, saying it should ultimately be up to consumers to decide what they want to eat. Kimbal Musk, brother of Elon, is also an investor in Upside Foods. (He has called himself a centrist Democrat who occasionally votes Republican and made many posts on X about how he hates Trump — but he’s also been described as Elon’s “close confidante” and is on the board of Tesla.) 

    Upside Foods went through the FDA’s pre-market consultation process for its original proof-of-concept product — a simple chicken filet — under Trump’s first term. (The process of making the chicken “shreds” is different enough that it requires additional clearance.) Upside Foods got clearance to sell its product from the FDA in 2022 as well as a thumbs-up from the Department of Agriculture in 2023. But the company has been very slow to bring the filets to market. For a time, the filets were only available at Bar Crenn, a fine-dining restaurant in the Bay Area, although that partnership ended recently. Still, going through that process taught the company valuable lessons, said Eric Schulze, a veteran of the cultivated meat space who led Upside Foods’ regulatory strategy then. 

    Tempura-battered ab-grown chicken is served in a gold dish with edible flowers and greens
    Bar Crenn served Upside Foods’ flagship chicken tempura-style, alongside edible flowers. Upside Foods

    “I worked with the first Trump administration and found it to be actually a very fruitful relationship,” said Schulze, who worked as an FDA regulator under the Obama administration for six years before coming to Upside. He left Upside in 2023 and now advises cultivated meat companies as an independent consultant. 

    According to Schulze, a number of factors worked in Upside Foods’ favor — and could potentially help other cultivated meat companies, too. Schulze said that when Upside Foods was working with the FDA, his team emphasized the pro-business argument for fake meat. “If you have a better product, you know, may it beat us fairly on the playing field of capitalism,” he said.  

    Schulze also noted that cultivated meat wasn’t necessarily as politicized under the last Trump administration as you might expect fake meat options to be. According to Schulze, both the Department of Agriculture and the FDA under Trump seemed to think that “food should be nonpartisan to the extent possible, and to the extent it couldn’t be nonpartisan, it should at least be bipartisan.” Two agency heads appointed by Trump — Scott Gottlieb, who led the FDA from 2017 to 2019, and Sonny Perdue, the former agricultural secretary — were behind the decision to jointly regulate cell-cultured food products. The move indicated a willingness to embrace innovation in the creation of alternative proteins, rather than avoid or ignore them. 

    The question is whether a noted skeptic like Kennedy could come around to endorsing meat that’s been grown from cells, or if he might make it so hard for the companies to see approvals that their products never see the light of day. Chen described Upside Foods’ first review process with the FDA as “incredibly thorough,” adding “we have every reason to believe that that’s going to be the case in the future.”

    Although the regulatory process ultimately determines which products can be sold in the U.S., cultivated meat companies can find support at the state level, and through certain federal grant programs. For example, tech startups can access funding through the federal Small Business Innovation Research program. Maille O’Donnell, a senior policy specialist at the Good Food Institute, a think tank that supports alternative proteins, said the federal program has been an invaluable resource for the companies she works with — and could be immune to partisan squabbles. “This administration has every incentive to continue the SBIR program to help bring down food prices, return manufacturing jobs to the United States, and create new opportunities for farmers,” said O’Donnell.

    A handful of states have programs that support faux meat, such as Illinois, which launched its Alternative Protein Innovation Task Force last year. Massachusetts also allocated $10 million as part of a recent economic development bill to the state’s burgeoning alt protein sector. And in 2022, California supplied $5 billion to support research at three state universities, as part of its state budget. 

    At the federal level, the Biden administration opened up a variety of funding streams for alternative protein companies through the Department of Energy, with the goal of decarbonizing the agricultural industry. And Schulze said the Department of Defense, which has a long history of supporting technological research and development, “absolutely” has interest in investing in alternative proteins. 

    But the Pentagon has also faced blowback for engaging with the cultivated meat industry. In March 2023, the Defense Department gave more than $500 million in funding to BioMADE, a public-private partnership borne out of the department’s manufacturing technology arm, money that would go in part to “biomanufactured proteins.” Two months later, BioMADE put out a call for proposals that used technology, including cell cultivation, to make sustainable food rations for the military. The livestock industry seized on the announcement and chastised the Defense Department for trying to “feed our heroes like lab rats,” as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association put it. After that, the Defense Department publicly denied funding the manufacture of cultivated meat. 

    Still, there are signs of government interest in supporting innovations in alternative proteins. Last year, the Defense Department invested in a company working on using precision fermentation to make alt protein out of fungi. However, it’s too soon to gauge any one federal agency’s interest in supporting cultivated meat, according to Gerber, the head of the cultivated meat trade group. The future of the industry may get even more muddled after Trump attempted to put an end to federal grant programs this week.

    Cultivated meat companies are bulking up their lobbying efforts and also exploring whether there’s any way the upcoming Farm Bill could include some money for them. But Republicans in Congress have vowed to fight against that this year.

    Robert F Kennedy, Jr. walks out of his senate confirmation hearing, accompanied by his wife Cheryl Hines
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. steps out of one of his confirmation hearings. Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

    If nothing else, how the second Trump administration responds to the growing pains of the cultivated meat industry will offer insight into an age-old question: Can someone change their mind about something as intimate and personal as what food they like? Chen, from Upside Foods, said the most common reaction she’s heard among people trying lab-grown chicken for the first time is something like, “It’s chicken!” She joked that it’s the most unremarkable piece of chicken you’ll ever eat in your life. 

    Asked if Kennedy might be someday convinced by the science and data supporting the safety of such products, Schulze was optimistic. “I do believe that given RFK Jr.’s background and his training” from law school, said Schulze, “that he would at least be open to the evidence and the arguments.” 

    But as for what Trump’s nominee to run the health department might do, Schulze was quick to add: “Unless you’re RFK Jr., you don’t know.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Lab-grown meat rebrands itself to woo Trump — and RFK Jr. on Jan 30, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ‘Turn it into a retirement village’: Inside the war of words over Eden Park

    After lengthy, torrid and emotional debate a critical decision for the future of Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau is being made in March. One party will celebrate; the other will slink back to the drawing board. But will it really settle the great Auckland stadium debate?

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Chris Schulz

    It resembles a building from Blade Runner. It looks like somewhere the Avengers might assemble. It is, believes Paul Nisbet, the future.

    “It’s innovative, it’s groundbreaking, it’s something different,” says the driving force behind Te Tōangaroa, a new stadium mooted for downtown Auckland.

    He has spent 13 years dreaming up this moon shot, and it shows. “We have an opportunity here to deliver something special for the country.”

    Located behind Spark Arena, Te Tōangaroa — also called “Quay Park” — is Nisbet’s big gamble, the stadium he believes Tāmaki Makaurau needs to sustain the city’s live sport and entertainment demands for the next 100 years.

    His is a concept as grand as it gets, a U-shaped dream with winged rooftops that will sweep around fans sitting in the stands, each getting unimpeded views out over the Waitematā Harbour and Rangitoto Island.

    An artist's impression of Quay Park stadium, Auckland.
    Located behind Spark Arena, Te Tōangaroa is also called “Quay Park”. Image: Te Tōangaroa

    Nisbet calls his vision a “gateway for the world,” a structure so grand he believes it would attract the biggest sports teams, stars and sponsors to Aotearoa while offering visitors a must-see tourist destination. Nestled alongside residential areas, commercial zones and an All Blacks-themed hotel, designs show a retractable roof protecting 55,000 punters from the elements and a sky turret towering over neighbouring buildings.

    He’s gone all in on this. Nisbet’s quit his job, assembled a consortium of experts — called Cenfield MXD — and attracted financial backers to turn his vision into a reality. It is, Nisbet believes, the culmination of his 30-year career working in major stadiums, including 11 years as director of Auckland Stadiums.

    “I’ve had the chance to travel extensively,” he says. “I’ve been to over 50 stadiums around the world.”

    Tāmaki Makaurau, he says, needs Te Tōangaroa — urgently. If approved, it will be built over an ageing commercial space and an unused railway yard sitting behind Spark Arena, what Nisbet calls “a dirty old brownfields location that’s sapping the economic viability out of the city”.

    He calls it a “regeneration” project. “You couldn’t mistake you’re in Auckland, or New Zealand, when you see images of it,” he says.

    The All Blacks are on board, says Nisbet, and they want Te Tōangaroa built by 2029 in time for a Lions tour. (The All Blacks didn’t respond to a request for comment, but former players John Kirwan and Sean Fitzpatrick have backed the team moving to Te Tōangaroa.)

    Concert promoters are on board too, says Nisbet. He believes Te Tōangaroa would end the Taylor Swift debacle that’s seen her and many major acts skip us in favour of touring Australian stadiums.

    “It will be one of those special places that international acts just have to play,” he says.

    The problem? Nisbet’s made a gamble that may not pay off. In March, a decision is due to be made about the city’s stadium future. Building Te Tōangaroa, with an estimated construction time of six years and a budget of $1 billion, is just one option.

    The other, Eden Park, has 125 years of history, a long-standing All Blacks record and a huge number of supporters behind it — as well as a CEO willing to do anything to win.

    The stadium standing in Te Tōangaroa’s way
    Stand in Eden Park’s foyer for a few minutes and history will smack you in the face. It’s there in the photos framed on the wall from a 1937 All Blacks test match. It’s sitting in Anton Oliver’s rugby boots from 2001, presumably fumigated and placed inside a glass case.

    More recent history is on display too, with floor-to-ceiling photographs showing off concerts headlined by by Ed Sheeran and Six60, a pivot only possible since 2021.

    Soon, the man in charge of all of this arrives. “Very few people have seen this space,” says Nick Sautner, the Eden Park CEO who shakes my hand, pulls me down a hallway and invites me into a secret room in the bowels of Eden Park. With gleaming wood panels, leather couches and top-shelf liquor, Sautner’s proud of his hidden bar.

    “It’s invite-only . . . a VIP experience,” says Sautner, whose Australian accent remains easily identifiable despite seven years at the helm of Eden Park.

    The future of Eden Park if a refurb is granted.
    The future of Eden Park if a refurb is granted. Image: YouTube

    This bar, he says, is just one of the many innovations Eden Park has undertaken in recent years. Built in 1900, the Mt Eden stadium remains the home of the All Blacks — but Eden Park is no longer considered a specialty sports venue.

    Up to 70 percent of the stadium’s revenue now comes from non-sporting activities, Sautner confirms. You can golf, abseil onto the rooftops and stay the night in dedicated glamping venues. It’s also become promoters’ choice for major concerts, with Coldplay and Luke Combs recently hosting multiple shows there. “We will consider any innovation you can imagine,” Sautner tells me. “We’re a blank canvas.”

    Throughout our interview, Sautner refers to Eden Park as the “national stadium”. He’s upbeat and on form, rattling off statistics and renovations from memory. His social media feeds — especially LinkedIn — are full of posts promoting the stadium’s achievements. He’ll pick up the phone to anyone who will talk to him.

    “Whatsapp is the best way of contacting me,” he says. Residents have his number and can call directly with complaints. After our interview, Sautner passes me his business card then follows it up with an email making sure I have everything I need. “My phone’s always on,” he assures me.

    He may not admit it, but Sautner’s doing all of this in an attempt to get ahead of what’s shaping up as the biggest crisis of Eden Park’s 125 years. If Te Tōangaroa is chosen in March, Eden Park — as well as Albany’s North Harbour Stadium and Onehunga’s Go Media Stadium – will all take a back seat.

    If Eden Park loses the All Blacks and their 31-year unbeaten record, then there’s no other word for it: the threat is existential.

    The future of Eden Park if a refurb is granted.
    Called Eden Park 2.1, Sautner is promoting a three-stage renovation plan. Image: YouTube

    Ask Sautner if he’s losing sleep over his stadium’s future and he shakes his head. To him, Te Tōangaroa’s numbers don’t stack up. “If someone can make the business model work for an alternative stadium in Auckland, I’m all for activating the waterfront,” he says.

    Then he poses a series of questions: “How many events a year would a downtown stadium hold? Forty-five?” he asks. “So 320 other days a year, what’s going to be in that stadium?”

    He is, of course, biased. But Sautner believes upgrading Eden Park is the right move. Called Eden Park 2.1, Sautner is promoting a three-stage renovation plan that includes building a $100 million retractable rooftop. A new North Stand would lift Eden Park’s capacity to 70,000, and improved function facilities and a pedestrian bridge would turn the venue into “a fortress . . . capable of hosting every event”.

    He’s veering into corporate speak, but Sautner sees the vision clearly. With his annual concert consent recently raised from six to 12 shows, he already thinks he’s got it in the bag, “Eden Park has the land, it has the consent, it has the community, it has the infrastructure,” he says. “I’m very confident Eden Park is going to be here for another 100 years.”

    Instead of a drink, Sautner offers RNZ a personal stadium tour that takes us through the exact same doors that open when the All Blacks emerge onto the hallowed turf. There, blinking in the sunlight, Sautner sweeps his arms around the stadium and grins. “I get up every day and I think of my family,” he says. “Then I think, ‘How can I make Eden Park better?”

    The stadium debate: ‘It began when the dinosaurs died out’
    It is, says Shane Henderson, an argument for the ages. It never seems to quit. How long have Aucklanders been feuding about stadiums? “It began when the dinosaurs died out,” jokes Henderson.

    For the past year, he’s been chairing a working group that will make the decision on Auckland’s stadium future. That group whittled four options down to the current two, eliminating a sunken waterfront stadium, and another based in Silo Park.

    He’s doing this because Wayne Brown asked him to. “The mayor said, ‘We need to say to the public, ‘This is our preferred option for a stadium for the city.’” It’s taken over Henderson’s life. Every summer barbecue has turned into a forum for people to share their views.

    “People say, “Why don’t you do this?’” he says. Henderson won’t be drawn on which way he’s leaning ahead of March’s decision, but he’s well aware of the stakes. “We’re talking about the future of our city for generations to come,” he says. “It’s natural feelings are going to run high.”

    That’s true. As I researched this story, the main parties engaged in a back-and-forth discussion that became increasingly heated. Jim Doyle, from Te Tōangaroa’s Cenfield MXD team, described Eden Park’s situation as desperate.

    “Eden Park can’t fund itself . . . it’s got no money, it’s costing ratepayers,” he said. Doyle alleged the stadium “wouldn’t be fit for purpose”. “You’re going to have to spend probably close to $1 billion to upgrade it.” Asked what should happen to Eden Park should the decision go Te Tōangaroa’s way, Doyle shrugged his shoulders. “Turn it into a retirement village.”

    Eden Park’s Sautner immediately struck back. Yes, he admits Eden Park owes $40 million to Auckland Council, calling that debt a “legacy left over from the Rugby World Cup 2011”. But he denied most of the consortium’s claims.

    “Eden Park does not receive any funding or subsidies from Auckland ratepayers,” Sautner said in a written statement. He confirmed renovations had already begun. “Over the past three years, the Trust has invested more than $30 million to enhance infrastructure and upgrade facilities . . . creating flexible spaces to meet evolving market demands.”

    Sautner said Doyle’s statement was evidence of his team’s inexperience. “We are extremely disappointed that comments of this nature have been made,” he said. “They are factually incorrect and highlight Quay Park consortium’s lack of understanding of stadium economics.”

    Do we even need to do this?
    As the stadium debate turns into a showdown, major stars continue to skip Aotearoa in favour of huge Australian shows, with Katy Perry, Kylie Minogue and Oasis all giving us a miss this year. New Zealand music fans are reluctantly spending large sums on flights and accommodation if they want to see them. Until Metallica arrives in November, there are no stadium shows booked; just three of Eden Park’s 12 allotted concert slots are taken this year.

    Yet, Auckland City councillors will soon study feasibility reports being submitted by both stadium options.

    On March 24, Henderson, the working group chair, says councillors will come together to “thrash it out” and vote for their preferred option. There will only be one winner, and The New Zealand Herald reports either building Te Tōangaroa or Eden Park 2.1 is likely to cost more than $1 billion. Either we’re spending that on a brand new waterfront stadium, or we’re upgrading an old one.

    “Is that the best use of that money?” asks David Benge. The managing director for events company TEG Live doesn’t believe Tāmaki Makaurau needs another stadium because it’s barely using those it already has. He has questions.

    “I understand the excitement around a shiny new toy, but to what end?” he asks. “Can Auckland sustain a show at Go Media Stadium, a show at Western Springs, a show at Eden Park, and a show at this new stadium on the same night — or even in the same week?”

    Benge doesn’t believe Te Tōangaroa would entice more artists to play here either. “I’m yet to meet an artist who’s going to be swayed by how iconic a venue is,” he says. Bigger problems include the size of our population and the strength of our dollar.

    No matter the venue, “you’re still incurring the same expenses to produce the show,” he says. Instead, he suggests Pōneke as the next city needing a new venue. “If you could wave a magic wand and invest in a 10,000-12,000-capacity indoor arena in Wellington, that would be fantastic,” he says.

    An artist's impression of Quay Park stadium, Auckland.
    Would a new stadium really lure big artists to NZ? Image: Te Tōangaroa

    Live Nation, the touring juggernaut that hosts most of the country’s stadium shows, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other promoters canvassed by RNZ offered mixed views. Some wanted a new stadium, while others wanted a refurbished one. Every single one of them said that any new stadium needed to be built with concerts — not sport — in mind.

    “We’re fitting a square peg in a round hole,” one said about the production costs involved in trucking temporary stages into Eden Park or Go Media Stadium. “Turf replacement can add hundreds of thousands — if not $1 million — to your bottom line,” said another.

    Some wanted something else entirely. Veteran promoter Campbell Smith pointed out Auckland Council is seeking input for a potential redevelopment of Western Springs. One mooted option is turning it into a home ground for the rapidly rising football club Auckland FC. Smith doesn’t agree with that. “I think it’s a really attractive option for music and festivals,” he says. “It’s got a large footprint, it’s easily accessible, it’s close to the city … It would be a travesty if it was developed entirely for sport.”

    One thing is for certain: a decision on this lengthy, torrid and emotional topic is being made in March. One party will celebrate; the other will slink back to the drawing board. Will it finally end the great Auckland stadium debate? That’s a question that seems easier to answer than any of the others.

    Chris Schulz is a freelance entertainment journalist and author of the industry newsletter, Boiler Room. This article was first published by RNZ and is republished with the author’s permission. Asia Pacific Report has a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • News Corp lies to Australian Parliament in lobbying putsch to change media laws

    Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution — not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law, reports Michael West Media.

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Michael West

    Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.

    However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.

    The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.

    The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.

    Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications LegislationCommittee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill
    Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill. Image: MWM screenshot

    Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.

    In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.

    By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.

    Big-league tax dodger
    They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.

    Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.

    The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.

    If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.

    Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.

    Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.

    Little regard for laws
    Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.

    This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.

    Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.

    Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is reopublished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • News Corp lies to Parliament in lobbying putsch to change media laws

    News Corp, Foxtel, Senate

    Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution, not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law. Michael West reports.

    Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate the company claimed “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.

    However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although ‘contempt of Parliament’ laws are never enforced.

    The investigation found NXE, the entity which controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income. The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.

    Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications LegislationCommittee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill

    Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill

    Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment. 

    In May 2021 – which is also where the transgression occurred – the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.

    By this time, Netflix had frog-leaped Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.

    They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements. Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.

    Foxtel: transactions you can’t trust, tax evasion you can’t ignore

     

    The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.

    As if democracy is to function better the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.

    Rex Patrick: has the Australian Senate lost its mojo?

    Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.

    Companies don’t ‘pay’ GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.

    A Netflix Original: Dreams of Theft Downunder

    Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little disregard for the laws of Australia are shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.

    This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.

    Gas fracker Tamboran grabs government cash, snubs Senate, scurries off to tax haven

    Politicians need to muscle up, as did Greens senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarkets inquiry.

    Gas fracker Tamboran grabs government cash, snubs Senate, scurries off to tax haven

    This post was originally published on Michael West.