radiofree.asia

Category: Business

  • Fiji Water workers strike almost a week – but union ‘hopeful’ for deal

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    A National Union of Workers (NUW) official is hopeful Fiji Water employees who have been on strike for almost a week will return to work shortly.

    Last Tuesday, a group of workers for Fiji Water went on strike over pay disputes at the multi-million dollar US-owned company’s water bottling plant in Yaqara and the Naikabula depot in Lautoka.

    NUW’s industrial relations officer Mererai Vatege said the parties were currently working on a resolution.

    “There have been some developments, the parties are currently talking,” Vatege said.

    “We’re very hopeful and positive that this will be resolved soon.”

    Vatege said the NUW met with Ministry of Labour officials on Thursday and are now awaiting a response from Fiji Water.

    However, she was unable to give a date when she expected the matters to be resolved by.

    Talks broke down last month
    The employees have continued their strike, holding signs with messages calling for pay increases and working conditions.

    Talks broke down between Fiji Water and workers on April 8.

    The workers claim the company has failed pay owed overtime and have not made income adjustments to inflation, along with other pay related issues.


    Fiji Water employees strike.           Viudeo: RNZ Pacific Waves

    RNZ Pacific have requested comment from Fiji Water but have not had a response.

    However, in a statement last Wednesday, a company spokesperson told Fijian media it was regrettable workers had engaged in a strike.

    “The decision to strike is also unlawful because these issues have been submitted to the Ministry of Employment, which has not yet decided on the dispute,” the spokesperson said.

    “Fiji Water takes great pride in being one of the best employers in Fiji and operating one of the most advanced and safest plants in the world.”

    Some of ‘highest benefits’
    The spokesperson said the company provided some of the highest and best benefits in Fiji, including a 13.5 percent wage increase in 2022.

    They said recent offers to the union equal an additional 17 percent pay increase for hourly-paid workers and a new roster pattern that would give workers 17 more days off each year.

    “Instead, the union has elected to engage in a strike that harms workers who will not receive wages while on strike,” the spokesperson said.

    The spokesperson said the company would remain committed to resolving the contested issues with the union.

    Vatege said employees wanted to return to work but were united in strike action.

    She said they would only return once an agreement was signed between the union and the employer.

    Fiji Water's signpost to its Yaqara valley production base in Fiji
    Fiji Water’s signpost to its Yaqara valley production base in Fiji. Image: RNZ/Sally Round

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Microsoft employees spent years fighting the tech giant’s oil ties. Now, they’re speaking out.

    For nearly a decade, Holly Alpine (née Beale) loved working at Microsoft. Shortly after finishing college, in July 2014, she landed a job there as a technical account manager. Less than four years later, Alpine was leading a team that invests in environmental projects in the communities where Microsoft’s data centers are located. She was also helping organize a worker-led sustainability group called the Sustainability Connected Community, which would grow to nearly 10,000 Microsoft employees worldwide by late 2023.

    But at the end of last year, Alpine reached a painful decision: She could no longer ethically work at Microsoft. On January 24, 2024, Alpine sent an email to Microsoft president Brad Smith, CEO Satya Nadella, and several other senior company officials, letting them know why. 

    Writing on behalf of herself and a colleague who resigned at the same time, Alpine told the tech giant’s top brass that the two were quitting in “no small part” due to Microsoft’s work for the fossil fuel industry aimed at automating and accelerating oil extraction.

    “This work to maximize oil production with our technology is negating all of our good work, extending the age of fossil fuels, and enabling untold emissions,” Alpine wrote in the email. “We are both deeply saddened to be so let down by a company we loved so much.” (Alpine’s colleague asked Grist not to identify them, citing concerns over how it might affect their future employment prospects in the tech industry.)

    Alpine’s blunt resignation letter didn’t come out of nowhere. For years, she was one of the faces of an internal, employee-led effort to raise ethical concerns about Microsoft’s work helping oil and gas producers boost their profits by providing them with cloud computing resources and AI software tools. Former Microsoft employees and sources familiar with tech industry advocacy say that, broadly speaking, employee pressure has had an enormous impact on sustainability at Microsoft, encouraging it to announce industry-leading climate goals in 2020 and support key federal climate policies. But convincing the world’s most valuable company to forgo lucrative oil industry contracts proved far more difficult. Eventually, Alpine decided speaking up internally wasn’t enough.

    This spring, Alpine spoke with Grist for her first on-the-record interview describing her experience advocating for change inside Microsoft. By speaking out publicly despite her concerns about legal risks, Alpine hopes to place additional pressure on her former employer to address the emissions it is enabling through technology partnerships with fossil fuel companies. Alpine’s account, along with those of other former Microsoft employees, as well as internal documents current and former employees shared with Grist, offer a rare glimpse into how tech industry workers are applying behind-the-scenes pressure to hold their bosses accountable on climate change.

    “My resignation was driven in part by the realization that the tech industry, including Microsoft, is increasing the profitability and competitiveness of these fossil fuel giants and perpetuating their existence when they should be phased out,” Alpine told Grist. “It became apparent after years of internal efforts … that Microsoft was unwilling to enact meaningful change.”

    A Microsoft spokesperson told Grist that the company’s employees are “core to our sustainability mission” and that executives engage with employee groups, like the Sustainability Connected Community that Alpine helped establish, “on a regular basis as part of an ongoing dialog.”

    Microsoft logo over an expo with tech and people
    The Microsoft company logo is seen during the 2021 SmartCity Expo World Congress, an international event focused on innovative and sustainable cities. Paco Freire / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images

    “The energy transition is complex and requires moving forward in a principled manner. We believe that technology has an important role to play in helping the industry decarbonize, and that requires balancing the energy needs and industry practices of today while inventing and deploying those of tomorrow,” the spokesperson added. “And we continually monitor our emissions, accelerate progress while increasing our use of clean energy to power data centers, purchasing renewable energy and other efforts to meet our sustainability goals of being carbon negative, water positive, and zero-waste by 2030.”

    It’s true that Microsoft is taking numerous steps to address the sustainability of its own operations. But for years, the company has also furnished fossil fuel giants with cloud computing services and specialized software tools powered by machine learning and AI in order to streamline and automate their operations. These digital technologies help companies discover oil faster, squeeze more from existing wells, and boost productivity across their operations in order to stay cost competitive in an age of cheap renewable energy. The digital services market for oil and gas is “immense,” as a 2020 report by oil industry analysts at Barclays put it, with the potential to unlock $150 billion in yearly savings for producers. 

    Over the past seven years, Microsoft has announced dozens of new deals with oil and gas producers and oil field services companies, many explicitly aimed at unlocking new reserves, increasing production, and driving up oil industry profits.

    In 2017, Alpine and former Microsoft employee Drew Wilkinson came together to organize a small group of workers who shared a passion for sustainability and wanted to make positive changes at Microsoft. In early 2018, that group was folded into the company’s formal Connected Communities program, which provides employees with support and resources to organize volunteer communities based on shared interests. The mission of the Sustainability Connected Community — to make sustainability part of everybody’s job at Microsoft — resonated with workers around the world, and the group quickly grew to several thousand members. 

    In the group’s first few years, tech companies’ oil and gas contracts became a focal point for climate-concerned workers across the tech industry. As they organized and began pressuring their bosses to take action on climate, news outlets started calling out Big Tech for creating AI technology aimed at accelerating oil production. 

    a group of people holding cardboard protest signs
    Sustainability Connected Community employees on Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, Washington, on the day of the 2019 global climate strike. Courtesy of Drew Wilkinson

    At an employee town hall in September 2019, a Microsoft worker asked Nadella, the company’s CEO, if he believed that helping oil companies extract more fossil fuels was an ethical use of the company’s technology. Nadella responded by stressing that fossil fuel companies are actively investing in the energy transition, according to a meeting transcript that was manually recorded by employees present at the time. Nadella’s response implied that by helping oil companies be more productive and achieve cost savings, Microsoft was enabling them to put more resources into emissions-reducing innovations. 

    “To me his answer was borderline gaslighting,” Wilkinson told Grist. “Those of us in the sustainability community were like, ‘The work you’re doing is not to help them transition. The work you’re doing is to help them find and extract and burn more oil.’”

    As concerns over the company’s fossil fuel work mounted, Microsoft was gearing up to make a big sustainability announcement. In January 2020, the company pledged to become “carbon negative” by 2030, meaning that in 10 years, the tech giant would pull more carbon out of the air than it emitted on an annual basis. The news generated a wave of positive media attention and was met with cheers from the Sustainability Connected Community, Wilkinson said.

    “The initial reaction was like, ‘Holy sh–t, this is awesome,’” Wilkinson told Grist. “All this pressure we put on the company” — not just around the oil contracts, but sustainability more broadly — “worked.” 

    The group’s concerns over Microsoft’s fossil fuel business “died down” for a while, according to Wilkinson: “Those of us who had been organizing on it back in 2019 were like, ‘Let’s wait and see what they do. Let’s give them a chance.’”

    A man in a suit with glasses talks in front of an Earth icon
    Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella delivers a speech during an event named Microsoft Build AI Day in Jakarta in April 2024. Adek BERRY / AFP voa Getty Images

    For nearly two years, employees watched and waited. Following its carbon negative announcement, Microsoft quickly expanded its internal carbon tax, which charges the company’s business groups a fee for the carbon they emit via electricity use, employee travel, and more. It also invested in new technologies like direct air capture and purchased carbon removal contracts from dozens of projects worldwide. But Microsoft’s work with the oil industry continued unabated, with the company announcing a slew of new partnerships in 2020 and 2021 aimed at cutting fossil fuel producers’ costs and boosting production. 

    For Alpine, Wilkinson, and other employees, the incongruity between Microsoft’s climate goals and its efforts to enable oil extraction was too big to ignore. In late 2021, a small group of employees involved in the Sustainability Connected Community came together to craft a memo for Microsoft’s leadership calling attention to the climate impact of the company’s fossil fuel business. By customizing its cloud computing technology for oil and gas companies, Microsoft was “enabling far more emissions than we offset or remove,” employees asserted — yet those indirect emissions were not included in the company’s internal carbon accounting. The employees calculated that a single deal with Exxon Mobil to expand production in Texas and New Mexico by up to 50,000 barrels per day could enable carbon emissions adding up to 640 percent of the company’s carbon removal target for 2021.

    “We believe we must hold ourselves accountable for the enabled emissions of our technology,” reads the memo, a copy of which was shared with Grist. “Our principled approach and leadership can — and should — set an industry standard.”

    The memo goes on to outline more than a dozen recommendations for the company, including advocating for policies that align with 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, measuring the emissions increases (or reductions) enabled by Microsoft’s technology, and ceasing to develop custom software tools aimed at increasing oil extraction.

    In December 2021, Alpine, along with two other employees who asked Grist not to identify them, held a meeting with Smith and Lucas Joppa, who was then Microsoft’s chief environmental officer, to discuss the memo and present their recommendations. The meeting felt “really positive,” Alpine told Grist, adding that Smith expressed agreement with most of the employees’ recommendations and even appeared surprised that one of them — adding environmental impacts to Microsoft’s internal principles governing the responsible use of AI — hadn’t already been implemented. Smith, Alpine said, even offered to assemble a small team to further explore the concept of environmentally responsible AI principles. A former Microsoft employee familiar with the company’s responsible AI standards told Grist the idea was investigated but never went anywhere; the company’s responsible AI principles still do not include sustainability.

    Microsoft and Joppa declined to comment on the meeting.

    A man in a suit stands on stage in front of a screen that says Microsoft AI Access Principles with lots of small industry photos in the background
    Brad Smith, vice chair and president of Microsoft, speaks at the ”New Strategies for a New Era” keynote at the Mobile World Congress 2024 in Barcelona, Spain, in February 2024. Joan Cros / NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Alpine told Grist she left the meeting “hopeful that things would change.” And several months later, in March 2022, Microsoft issued a blog post outlining a series of principles that would guide its future work with the energy industry. The so-called energy principles included expanding work on initiatives focused on low and zero-carbon energy and helping energy customers develop “effective net-zero commitments.” Perhaps most significantly, the principles stated that Microsoft would only develop specialized tools for oil and gas extraction for companies that had agreed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

    “We were really excited when [the principles] were first published,” Alpine told Grist. “They were published, we were told, in part because of our advocacy, which felt really good.” 

    But the more Alpine and others asked questions about the principles, the more they felt let down. Microsoft’s pledge to only develop custom fossil fuel extraction technologies for companies with a net-zero target only covered the emissions associated with producing the fuels, known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Oil and gas companies weren’t being asked to zero out the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, known as Scope 3 emissions, which can represent upwards of 85 percent of their total emissions. 

    What’s more, oil companies simply had to put forth a net-zero target. Microsoft wasn’t requiring them to do anything to show they were on track to meet it.

    “Requiring a net-zero target only for Scope 1 and 2 emissions brushes aside the vast majority of the problem, which is the emissions that result from burning the fossil fuel companies’ products,” said Bill Weihl, founder of the nonprofit advocacy group ClimateVoice and a former sustainability director at Facebook and Google. “And a 2050 target, with no intermediate targets that would demonstrate a real commitment to shifting toward clean energy, is essentially meaningless.” Microsoft declined to comment on these concerns.

    In November 2022, the Sustainability Connected Community held a call with Darryl Willis, Microsoft’s corporate vice president of energy, to discuss the principles. According to a meeting transcript generated by Microsoft Teams, employees peppered Willis with questions about what the principles meant and how Microsoft was implementing them, including which standards Microsoft would use to judge energy companies’ net-zero pledges, whether Microsoft was bringing up Scope 3 emissions in conversations with energy industry clients, and whether Microsoft had a plan to transition its energy division revenue away from fossil fuels. 

    Willis acknowledged that there was “a lack of standards” around Microsoft’s net-zero requirement, and that including emissions from the burning of fossil fuels in companies’ net-zero targets was “going to be a journey.”

    “It’s hard, it’s big, it’s complicated,” Willis told employees on the call, according to the transcript. “But I think it’s not unrecognized as a necessity.”

    A man in a suit talks to another person in a suit
    Darryl Willis, Microsoft’s corporate vice president of energy, left, greets Crown Prince Haakon of Norway at Microsoft Conference Center in April 2024 in Redmond, Washington. Mat Hayward / Getty Images

    On the call, Willis committed to providing employees with updates on net-zero requirements as Microsoft continued to implement the principles. He also committed to providing a breakdown of the energy division’s revenue across six different sectors, from oil and gas extraction to low- or zero-carbon energy, as well as an analysis of personnel resources assigned to extractive industries versus renewable energy. Finally, Willis agreed to share a plan for how Microsoft’s energy division would transition its revenue toward low-carbon energy.

    Alpine says she held several additional meetings with senior energy division and sustainability officials at Microsoft over the following year, and that Willis joined the Sustainability Connected Community for another call in November 2023. But the promised updates and analyses never materialized. At a December 2023 meeting with energy executives, Alpine says she was told that Microsoft was not responsible for defining net-zero for their customers, as there’s no global standard. (Microsoft declined to share any additional information with Grist concerning its net-zero standards for energy sector clients or any of the other commitments Willis made to employees in 2022.)

    A few weeks later, Alpine came across a LinkedIn blog post Microsoft technical architect Azam Zaidi had written in April 2023 about the company’s work on oil and gas industry automation. Microsoft’s cloud services division, Azure, Zaidi asserted, was “at the heart” of the fossil fuel industry’s digital transformation,“enabling faster and more accurate decision-making and unlocking previously inaccessible reserves.”

    “With Azure,” Zaidi concluded, “the future of oil and gas exploration and production is brighter than ever.”

    “That was really a nail in the coffin for me,” Alpine said. 

    In her January resignation email to Smith, Alpine quoted Zaidi’s post directly. “Facilitating a ‘future of oil and gas’ that ‘is brighter than ever’ goes against everything that we stand for, and everything we thought this company stands for as well,” Alpine wrote. 

    Melanie Nakagawa, Microsoft’s chief sustainability officer, responded to Alpine the next day, thanking her for her “continued advocacy for sustainability.” Microsoft, Nakagawa wrote, is continuing to “uphold and adhere” to the energy principles, which the Sustainability Connected Community “had a role in shaping.”

    A woma in a blazer talks in front of a large screen with web summit logos
    Melanie Nakagawa, chief sustainability officer at Microsoft, speaks at Web Summit 2023. Hugo Amaral / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images

    Weihl of ClimateVoice says it’s important to recognize that Microsoft employees “have been very effective internally on several fronts,” including encouraging the company to publicly voice its support for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which earmarked hundreds of billions of federal dollars toward clean energy. Last fall, Weihl said, employees at Microsoft launched an internal campaign targeting the company’s membership in trade associations that oppose climate policy, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Earlier this year Microsoft released an audit of its trade associations showing their alignment (or lack thereof) on climate policy, which Weihl called “a big step toward accountability.” 

    Wilkinson, who started his own climate consulting business after he was laid off from Microsoft in early 2023, has maintained contact with many former colleagues in the Sustainability Connected Community. When it comes to addressing the emissions Microsoft enables within the fossil fuel industry, “the work is continuing,” he said. 

    Alpine isn’t sure what’s next for her career-wise, but she’s considering focusing on coalition-building around the emissions that tech corporations enable, or sustainable food production. In the meantime, she’s keeping the heat on Microsoft by speaking out publicly about her time there.

    Weihl is optimistic about what Microsoft employees — and former employees — can do if they continue to raise a ruckus. 

    “The energy principles open a door,” he said. “So do the commitments Willis made. Employee pressure made that happen. It’s now up to employees … to keep the pressure on and make sure those principles and those commitments aren’t just window dressing.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Microsoft employees spent years fighting the tech giant’s oil ties. Now, they’re speaking out. on May 8, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ‘Reckless’ kina devaluation spells disaster for PNG, says Nomane

    PNG Post-Courier

    Papua New Guinea’s deputy opposition leader James Nomane has accused the government of “reckless economic management” that has forced devaluation to manage loan repayments in foreign currency and placate the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

    Prime Minister James Marape “must stop lying to the people of Papua New Guinea”, he said in a statement responding Marape’s message that devaluation was inevitable and good for exports.

    “The devaluation of the kina was planned — not inevitable. Although the kina devaluation makes PNG exports cheaper, we have not invested in agriculture to increase production and export volumes that will improve our trade deficit,” said Nomane, a former minister in Marape’s government.

    He was responding to a report by an ANZ economist forecasting that the unpegged the kina was expected to continue its depreciation until 2026. The lack of significant new foreign currency inflow was pushing down the kina’s value, with the currency already losing 2.1 percent against the US dollar since the end of 2023.

    Nomane said the devaluation would increase the cost of imports and directly increase domestic prices.

    Continued price increases in basic goods and services such as rice, tinned fish, fuel, water, electricity would raise inflation and make the cost-of-living crisis worse.

    “Marape has been fixated on borrowing to fund Connect PNG and other dubious investments that enrich a small group of his cronies at the expense of the nation,” Nomane said.

    ‘Dubious state guarantee’
    “Sovereign guarantees that will not create jobs or spur economic growth have become the Marape modus operandi.

    “For example, the dubious K2.4 billion (NZ1.4 billion) state guarantee for a solar-power project in Gusap, Madang province, without any due diligence to a K2 Singapore company.

    “Marape seems to imply that the government can tell the Central Bank what to do.”

    This inferred control was dangerous and an affront to Sir Mekere Morauta’s exemplary reforms for total independence of the Central Bank.

    By melding the Treasury and Central Bank, the Prime Minister was preempting the decisions of the Central Bank in terms of interest rates and monetary policy.

    “Devaluation will raise inflation and the cost-of-living, lower creditworthiness, and reduce investor confidence.”

    Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The history of the female side-hustle

    Living on a farm in regional Australia and about to welcome another child to our family unit, I was contemplating what my future commute to Sydney for my state government job would look like. It was 2019, the year before Covid, and before working from home became the norm. All of a sudden, I would be juggling multiple children’s schedules. The challenges of distance, commuting and day-care availability were starting to stack up.

    As a historian and resident of rural Australia, I began to reflect on the broader social experience of rural and regional women who, challenged by distance, drought, lack of job opportunities, farm responsibilities and the desert of day-care availability, were innovatively creating ways to earn through micro-businesses and small-scale economic ventures.

    Buy from the Bush (BFTB) was launched in October that year, bringing national (and international) visibility to many of these rural micro-businesses that traversed the rural-urban divide. And importantly, 97% of the businesses featured by BFTB in the first eight months were run by women and started as ‘side ventures’. What was apparent was that women were earning incomes outside of their main employment or role as primary carers, to supplement farm incomes affected by the disastrous economic and social impacts of the drought.

    I began researching the history of rural and regional women’s side entrepreneurial ventures. This wasn’t easy. What international research into women’s business history shows is that women’s businesses have been historically hard to trace, not registered in women’s names (or for informal side ventures, not at all), and their economic and social significance downplayed – they operated in the shadows.

    I conducted oral history interviews, pored over newspaper and magazine articles, reviewed economic and social research reports, and scoured private memoirs, diaries, family histories, personal advertisements and court transcripts.

    What I found was a long-standing tradition of rural and regional women in Australia engaging in economic activities that bear a great resemblance to what would we now call side hustles.

    These side businesses were often identified by other names, such as, the cottage industry, pin money or egg money – names that often downplayed or diminished the market value of their economic contribution and reinforced traditional notions of rural womanhood and societal expectations of women’s roles.

    Women in the nineteenth century established small-scale businesses by selling surplus dairy, garden and poultry produce, making garments and hats, mattresses and writing articles. Into the twentieth century, articles and interviews revealed that women were taking in boarders, breeding animals, sewing and knitting garments, making soaps, jewellery, running farm tourism activities on their properties and making and selling produce.

    breakfast eggs and herbs, macro shot, vintage farm table, fresh morning, local farm

    Dr Louise Prowse’s research shows women in the nineteenth century established small-scale businesses, often making products at the kitchen table. Picture: Adobe Stock. 

    They were performing this labour in their own home – very often at the kitchen table – and in the hours that they could spare between caring for family, running the household and working on the farm. They were selling their wares or produce predominantly within their social networks (but at times to larger companies, organisations and stores) and they were motivated to earn to for a few key reasons – to supplement the farm or their partner’s income particularly during tough economic times of environmental crises, to help support their family and to develop something of their own in the midst of geographic and social isolation and a lack of socially permissible and opportunities to earn an income.

    Why is it then that side hustles are considered to be new? In my research I suggest that the universally accepted definition of the side hustle – a secondary income that is in addition to one’s main job or income earned – discriminates against historical categorisations of labour performed by women. If one’s main form of employment or role is unpaid, then a “side hustle” is technically impossible.

    You must have a main income in order to have a “side” one. But if we accept that unpaid work of women throughout this period (child care responsibilities, running the household and performing farm labour) constituted a full-time responsibility, or “main job”, then any venture where women earned a side income becomes visible and can be understood through the prism of the ‘side hustle’ economic model.

    What the history of Australian rural and regional women’s side businesses show is that side hustles are not new; rather, women have been engaging in this economic model, long before the term “side hustle” entered the mainstream economy and consciousness.

    • Please note: picture at top is a stock image

     

     

    The post The history of the female side-hustle appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Make Art Workshop: The Business Side of Things [TEASER]

    The recording of the Gaslit Nation Make Art Workshop: The Business Side of Things is here along with the transcript in the show notes for our subscribers at the Truth-teller and higher. Not a subscriber? Sign up and join a community of listeners, get all shows ad free, bonus shows, exclusive invites, questions answered in our Q&As, and more by subscribing at the Truth-teller level and higher on Patreon.com/Gaslit! 

     

    In this special workshop, a follow-up to last fall’s Make Art Workshop, where Andrea shared her secret hot sauce for writing a first draft that reads like a third draft, she follows it up with her business checklist on how to navigate shark-infested waters with an open heart, knowing how to protect yourself, what to look out for in every contract and advice for working with lawyers, the often overlooked goals of fundraising that will make all the difference for your project, saving it from the brink. 

     

    The Q&A discussion became a freewheeling chat with our live audience from our community of Gaslit Nation listeners sharing their projects, questions, and responding to Andrea’s additional stories and insights for bringing your art out into the world. The Q&A portion is transcript only, to protect the privacy of the folks who participated, creating a lively and inspiring meeting of minds. To connect with other artists, and those who love artists, in our Gaslit Nation community, be sure to join the chat group on Patreon, exclusive to our subscribers at the Truth-teller level or higher, called Art is Survival.  

     

    Here are some of the references to help you on your journey:

     

    Thank you to everyone who supports Gaslit Nation – we could not make this show without you!

     

    Join the conversation with a community of listeners at Patreon.com/Gaslit and get bonus shows, all episodes ad free, submit questions to our regular Q&As, get exclusive invites to live events, and more! 

     

    Show Notes:

    Make Art Workshop on writing a first draft that reads like a third draft, from November 2023

    Audio only: https://www.patreon.com/posts/make-art-audio-93455868?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

    Video: https://www.patreon.com/posts/make-art-video-93450936?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

     

    A deep dive into Cuba’s rich musical history, reported from Havana

    https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197955869


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Every phone is a bottle shop in alcohol’s Netflix era

    A bottle shop on every phone

    Australia’s major alcohol retailers are increasingly moving into the digital space, aiming to emulate the methods and the successes of popular streaming services. But what are the risks? Zacharias Szumer investigates.

    As advocacy groups have long warned, we have well and truly entered the age in which ‘every phone is a bottle shop’. Many of the largest Australian liquor retailers – including Dan Murphy’s, BWS, Liquorland and Cellarbrations – all have apps through which purchases can be made.

    Some stores require you to visit a website to order booze for delivery or in-store pick-up, but it’s still a relatively frictionless transaction. What’s more, Australian companies are leading the alcohol e-commerce race.

    World’s largest e-alcohol retailer

    Dan Murphy’s has become the largest alcohol e-commerce company in the world, according to Statista – a market research company.

    In addition to its app and website, Dan Murphy’s also offers a variety of online-only deals for members of its My Dan’s loyalty program, which boasts an astounding 5.4 million “active members” – around 20% of the Australian population.

    That may actually be a decrease from two years ago, when the AFR reported that 6.2 million people – around 30 per cent of Australia’s adult population – were members.

    At that time, over half of these had used their membership in the past six months, the AFR reported.

    Top five online alcohol retailers

    Data source: Statista.

    And the numbers continue to go up.

    Online sales at Dan Murphy’s and BWS, both owned by the Endeavour Group, are growing at over double the rate of their overall sales, according to recently released financial documents.  Online sales now make up almost 10 per cent of Endeavour’s total retail sales.

    Endeavour’s closest competitor, Coles Liquor – who owns Liquorland, Vintage Cellars and First Choice – saw a far more dramatic disparity. Its total retail sales were up 2.8% in the first half of the 2024 financial year, but its e-commerce sales were up almost 15%.

    Who spiked the ‘data soup’?

    Through apps, websites and loyalty programs, alcohol retailers can construct increasingly accurate profiles of users’ tastes, and use this information to target them with advertising and promotions. The profiles are, naturally, based on past consumption.

    For example, if Zacharias Szumer previously bought the GlenDronach 15-Year-Old Revival Single Malt Scotch Whisky, he will possibly enjoy the Bunnahabhain 18-Year-Old Single Malt Scotch Whisky. So why not recommend he give it a try?

    In fact, the Endeavour Group has previously engaged with Spotify and Netflix, seeking advice on how to recommend and promote new alcoholic products to consumers.

    Caterina Giorgi

    FARE CEO Caterina Giorgi

    Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) CEO Caterina Giorgi told MWM that liquor retailers like this were “trying really hard to profile people to within an inch of their life so that they can target them based on their vulnerabilities.” She continued:

    Aggressive, targeted online alcohol advertising creates a vicious cycle, in which someone who already consumes a lot of alcohol will see even more ads for alcohol.

    A 2019 study found that 36% of alcohol in Australia is consumed by the heaviest-drinking 5% per cent, while 54.1% of alcohol is consumed by the heaviest-drinking 10%. Giorgi contends that:

    These companies really rely on people who are most at risk to buy more alcohol.

    A 2023 study co-authored by FARE and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation found that 83% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that marketing makes it more difficult for them to reduce their use of alcohol and other harmful substances.

    Previous research also clearly demonstrates that online marketing for alcohol is associated with increased use and consumption, FARE says.

    “All of the data goes into a data soup, and it’s used to build a profile of you. So that means things like the amount of alcohol you’ve purchased in the past, maybe even if you’re looking up information on alcohol or seeking support…”

    In a recent open letter to National Cabinet, FARE also said “addressing predatory and high-risk marketing that pushes bulk alcohol sales, including data-driven marketing,” were an essential part of preventing violence against women and children.

    Social media advertising

    Of course, apps and loyalty programs aren’t the only places where a person’s penchant for a tipple may be part of their algorithmic profile and thus generate the advertising with which they are targeted.

    By clicking through to Dan Murphy’s ‘ad library’ on Facebook, we can see that the company is currently running over 70 individual advertisements. Liquorland was running over 30. However, users can’t see how much the company is paying Meta for the ads – as they can with political advertising.

    Ads on Meta platforms – Facebook, Instagram and Threads – are all targeted, as they are on all social media platforms.

    An average of 765 alcohol ads are being placed each week on Meta platforms in Australia, according to a recent study from a joint research project between Curtin University, Monash University and two Qld universities.

    Naturally, these ads link to websites where customers can make purchases.

    Testing a theory

    While Giorgi wasn’t sure if a person’s searches for help with alcohol consumption would feed into an algorithmic profile that served them more alcohol ads, she said there were currently “no rules” that would prevent it.

    To test this theory, your correspondent tried Googling phrases such as “help for drinking too much alcohol” and then clicking on some of the first results that came up – usually links to self-help resources or rehab clinics.

    Google alcohol searches

    Some of the searches conducted by your correspondent

    This also included searching and clicking through to some Facebook pages for rehab clinics and other alcohol-related support services.

    In the week after the search, there certainly did seem to be a noticeable uptick in ads for alcohol appearing on my social media feeds.

    Internet alcohol ads compilation

    A small compilation of some of the alcohol advertisements that popped up in the week after those searches by your correspondent.

    Still, this is an entirely subjective impression, and your correspondent has written about and thus searched for alcohol-related topics in the past.

    It’s also important to clarify that social media giants like Meta allow users to go into their “ad preferences” and see fewer alcohol-related ads – if they’ve been tagged as interested in these ‘topics’, as your correspondent has.

    However, when your correspondent tried to request that Meta show him fewer ads related to “spirits, beer and wine”, the system returned an error reading: “This page isn’t available at the moment”. 

    On the laptop, this happened over three consecutive days and on various internet connections. However, the functionality didn’t seem impaired on the mobile app.

    Coincidence? I don’t know; I might need a drink to figure it out …

    Independent beer-makers captive to liquor majors, supermarket duopoly

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • What will it take to get companies to embrace reusable packaging?

    For several months last year, patrons of a Seattle coffee shop called Tailwind Cafe had the option of ordering their Americanos and lattes in returnable metal to-go cups. Customers could simply borrow a cup from Tailwind, go on their way, and then at some point — perhaps a few hours later, perhaps on another day that week — return the cup to the shop, which would clean it and refill it for the next person. If it wasn’t returned within 14 days, the customer would be charged a $15 deposit, though even that was ultimately refundable if the cup was returned by the end of 45 days.

    Tailwind’s head chef, Kayla Tekautz, said her cafe started the program out of a desire to address the environmental scourge of disposable plastic foodware and other packaging, the vast majority of which cannot be recycled. It was a partnership with a reusable packaging and logistics company called Reusables.com, which provided Tailwind and another Seattle area store, Cloud City Coffee, with branded cups and a QR code-operated drop-off receptacle. 

    But the cafe quickly ran into trouble. It was “overwhelming” to explain the return system to every interested customer, Tekautz said. Many were hesitant to participate after learning that they could only return the cups to Tailwind or the other drop-off location, 6 miles away. Plus, Tailwind’s QR code reader kept malfunctioning, requiring repeated visits from a mechanic. At the end of last summer, Tailwind quietly ended the return program. “It just didn’t work,” Tekautz said. (Reusables.com didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment.)

    In an effort to reduce consumption of single-use plastic, Seattle has spent the past several years encouraging local businesses to offer reusable cups, dishes, utensils, and packaging. It has made some laudable progress. Concertgoers at the Paramount Theater and attendees of the Northwest Folklife Festival, for example, can now order their libations in reusable polypropylene cups. And since 2022, students at the University of Washington have been able to check out bright green reusable food containers from a company called Ozzi.

    Reusable cups offered at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle. Courtesy of Reuse Seattle

    These programs are helping Seattle avoid single-use plastic and create a “waste-free future,” according to the city’s reuse website. It’s a target that’s being pursued by many American cities, and at the global level too. Disposable plastic foodware and packaging — which accounts for nearly 40 percent of all plastic production — can only be phased out if there are robust, efficient reuse systems to replace them. 

    But some businesses, like Tailwind, have struggled to get reusable containers off the ground, often because of the small scale and disconnected nature of existing reuse programs. Instead of pooling resources and employing just one or two large cleaning and logistics services, businesses have so far chosen among several competing initiatives — or in some cases, have created and run their own programs. The result is a slew of incompatible containers, specific to just a few stores or locations, and inefficient systems for gathering, washing, and transporting between customers’ homes, sanitation facilities, and storefronts.

    Having so many companies creating their own designs and logistics can be expensive, causing them to miss out on economies of scale that could make reuse more affordable and easily adoptable. According to Ashima Sukhdev, a policy adviser for the city of Seattle, she should be able to “pick up a coffee from my local cafe, and then drop it off in the lobby of my office building. Or drop it off at the library, or at a bus stop.”

    What Sukhdev is describing would represent a highly unusual level of coordination across company lines. At coffee shops, this would mean reusable mugs shared not only between Tailwind and Cloud City, but also Starbucks and Peets. For grocery stores, it could mean picking up a jar of olives at Safeway, dropping off the empty container at Walgreens, and then having the same jar refilled with jam and sold at Whole Foods. Achieving this would require companies to rethink the way they compete with each other and differentiate their products. It would also require big changes from consumers, who have been trained for 70 years to expect disposability in just about every aspect of daily life.

    Pat Kaufman, right, with Reuse Seattle team members. Courtesy of Reuse Seattle

    Experts say these changes are necessary. “For this solution to become a reality, you’re gonna need standards,” said Pat Kaufman, manager of Seattle Public Utilities’ composting, recycling, and reuse program. 

    Kaufman is currently on a yearlong sabbatical working for a nonprofit called PR3, which is trying to create those standards. The questions they’re facing are: What will standardized reusable packaging systems look like — and what will it take to get companies, and consumers, to adopt them?

    Every year, the world produces about 400 million metric tons of plastic — almost entirely out of fossil fuels like oil and gas. Some of this is used in essential products like contact lenses and medical equipment, but a much greater fraction goes toward sporks, cups, bags, takeout containers, and other items that get thrown away after just a few minutes of use. Most of this plastic will never be recycled due to technical and economic restraints; more than 90 percent of all plastics get sent to a landfill or incinerator, or turn up as litter in the environment, where they degrade into microplastics and leach hazardous chemicals. Plastics manufacturing causes additional harms, including air pollution that disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color living nearby. 

    For all of these reasons, public pressure to cut back on single-use plastics has escalated dramatically in recent years. Many companies have responded by launching trials and pilot programs allowing customers to borrow and return reusable cups, bottles, trays, jars, and other containers. These include small players like Ozzi, as well as behemoth brands like Walmart and Coca-Cola. There have been “more trials than Donald Trump,” said Stuart Chidley, co-founder of a reusable packaging company called Reposit.

    Returnable containers from Reposit are offered at Mark & Spencer grocery stores in the U.K. Courtesy of Reposit

    As in Seattle, however, their efforts have been siloed, making it hard for the reuse sector to grow. According to a recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, or EMF — a nonprofit that advocates for a “circular economy” that conserves resources — even companies that have pledged to dramatically scale down their use of plastics have only replaced 2 percent or less of their single-use containers with reusables.

    “To realize the full benefits of return systems, a fundamentally new approach is required,” the authors concluded.

    The four types of reuse systems

    The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has identified four broad categories of reuse systems, based on who owns the containers and where they’re refilled or returned: refill on the go, refill at home, return on the go, return from home.

    Refill on the go: Consumers bring their own reusable containers to grocery stores and other locations, and refill them there — think the bulk section of a supermarket, where shoppers refill their own jars or bags with nuts, grains, and other foods.

    Refill at home: Consumers own their own reusable containers but instead of refilling them at a store, they order refills in the mail. For example, you order concentrated dish soap tablets and then dissolve them in a dispenser you already own.

    Return on the go: Businesses own containers and let consumers borrow them — often by charging a deposit that is refunded when the container is returned. This system involves container drop-off points at grocery stores, coffee shops, and other designated locations outside the home.

    Return from home: Businesses own the reusable containers, which logistics providers pick up from people’s homes and then transport to a washing facility so they can be used again — much like milkmen of old.

    The EMF report focuses on reusable containers that you can return to the coffee shop, grocery store, or another drop-off point — known as “return on the go” — as opposed to those that consumers own and bring with them to stores. It says that three things need to happen to make reuse mainstream. First, companies have to achieve high return rates, so they don’t lose inventory when people steal or forget to return their containers. Second, they have to share infrastructure for washing, collecting, sorting, and delivery in order to achieve economies of scale. Third, reusable containers must be standardized. The third pillar makes the other two much easier to achieve, since it’s simpler to share logistics, scale up, and familiarize customers with reuse systems if they share common characteristics — for instance, if containers are designed with similar shapes, sizes, and materials. 

    To that end, PR3 has spent the past four years drafting standards for reuse systems, with a particular focus on container design. Through a “consensus body” composed of members from big business, the advocacy world, and government, PR3 is hoping to eventually certify the world’s first reuse standards under the International Organization for Standardization (known as ISO, to prevent confusion around different acronyms in different languages). This would lend legitimacy to the PR3 proposals, as the ISO maintains one of the world’s most widely accepted catalogs of standards. Others within its portfolio cover everything from food safety to the manufacturing of medical devices, and have been voluntarily adopted by many large companies and government bodies. 

    PR3 released a draft of its standards last year, and it’s been updating them behind closed doors since then. Specific standards on washing protocols are set to be published for public review this week, and the nonprofit hopes that its consensus body will vote to finalize standards for container design later this year.

    Hand with yellow rubber gloves wash many white plastic cups in a large basin of water
    A worker from Taiwan’s Blue Ocean, an environmental protection company, cleans reusable mugs in Taoyuan. Sam Yeh / AFP via Getty Images

    PR3 released a draft of its standards last year, and it’s been updating them behind closed doors since then. Specific standards on washing protocols are set to be published for public review this week, and the nonprofit hopes that its consensus body will vote to finalize standards for container design later this year.

    So, what makes a good reusable container system? It’s complicated. Containers have to hold up under the stresses of logistics and transportation. They have to be relatively inexpensive. Perhaps most intangibly, they have to seem reusable, so customers don’t accidentally throw them in the trash. This can be accomplished through design elements — like containers’ color, texture, shape, and weight — or through other means, like easily recognizable drop-off boxes for used containers. Some reuse advocates support deposit fees, in which customers pay a small amount, usually just a dollar or two, in order to borrow a reusable container. They get the deposit back once they’ve returned the container.

    None of these features is guaranteed to work. In designing draft standards, PR3 has often had to make educated predictions about which ones consumers will respond to. And those predictions can have far-reaching implications. If you assume customers will frequently lose or forget to return their containers, for example, then it probably won’t make sense to design thick containers that are capable of withstanding hundreds of uses.

    “In the real world, return rates vary wildly,” Claudette Juska, PR3’s technical director and one of its co-founders, told Grist. “You don’t want to design a container for 400 uses if it’s only going to be used four times.” The most recent version of PR3’s standards say containers must be designed to withstand at least 20 uses and reused in practice at least 10 times.

    On the other hand, it may be counterproductive to design containers with the expectation that they won’t be returned. According to Chidley, with Reposit, cheap-looking and -feeling containers could actually cause low return rates, since people might be more careless with them. His philosophy is to use features like color, weight, and shape to communicate containers’ reusability, making it less plausible that people will confuse them for disposables.

    PR3 doesn’t have much specific advice on these characteristics, but some entrepreneurs Grist spoke with said they’ve hit higher return rates through particular design choices. For Chidley, this means making containers “beautiful” through high-quality, heavier materials with stylish branding. His containers are available at Marks & Spencer grocery stores across England and Scotland. Lindsey Hoell, founder of a reusable container logistics company called Dispatch Goods and a member of PR3’s standards panel, has forgone sharp-edged takeout food containers in favor of ones with smoother edges that “feel fancier.” And because so many single-use plastics are either black or white, her containers are bright red. “There’s a lot of soft science of what makes a consumer feel like something is durable,” she told Grist. Her containers are available across most of the U.S., mostly through grocery and meal delivery programs like Blue Apron and Imperfect Foods.

    To some extent, the discussion about expected use cycles and perceived quality is really just another way of asking what kinds of materials reusable containers should be made of: durable plastic or something else? Answering that question can bring into conflict businesses’ economic interests with concerns about health and the environment. 

    In the published draft of its standards from last year, PR3 recommended that reusable containers be “plastic-free,” citing plastic additives’ wide-ranging impacts on human health and ecosystems. Plastic can be cheap, light, and durable, but plastic-related chemicals have been shown to build up in people’s bodies and the environment, where they may contribute to hormone disruption, cancer, and reproductive harm.

    PR3 panel members like Jane Muncke, chief scientific officer for the nonprofit Food Packaging Forum, supported the recommendation. “I don’t think plastics are suitable materials for reusable packaging,” she told Grist. She’s concerned about chemicals migrating into foods and beverages — especially hot, acidic, or fatty foods, which are better at soaking up some plastic additives. Durable plastics are also largely nonrecyclable; after being turned into new products a few times, they have to be thrown away or “downcycled” into lower-quality products like carpeting.

    Still, many entrepreneurs and even the PR3 founders themselves have moved away from a hard-line stance against plastics. Hoell, for example, originally got into reuse because she was frustrated by plastic-strewn beaches in California — “I’m a surfer and I hate plastics,” she told Grist. She started out making stainless steel containers but soon discovered that rigid plastics had much lower up-front costs, giving her more wiggle room to deal with lower return rates. She didn’t have to worry as much about frequently lost, stolen, or damaged containers. 

    Plastic was also easier to transport because of its light weight, Hoell added, and she cited some analyses suggesting that it has a lower carbon footprint than alternatives like steel. (These findings are controversial, however; critics say it’s misleading to focus only on plastic-related carbon emissions and not the materials’ other dangers, like toxic chemicals leaching from landfills.)Dispatch Goods now only makes its containers out of polypropylene, a kind of plastic that’s generally considered more inert than others (although it can still leach hazardous chemicals). Other reuse logistics companies like R.world, which operates in Seattle and is also represented on the PR3 panel, have similarly opted for polypropylene containers instead of metal or glass.

    At Seattle Pacific University, a reusable container program for students eating at the Gwinn Commons dining hall also uses rigid plastic. The containers’ low cost allows Sodexo, the school’s foodservice provider, to charge students just $5 to participate in its reuse system all year, without tracking return rates or worrying too much about lost inventory. “We don’t have a list of subscribers,” said Andrew Chaplin, the dining team’s general manager. The program “runs itself.”

    Representatives from PR3 told Grist that plastic has been a hot topic of debate among consensus body members, and that the final version of the standards is likely to move away from the “plastic-free” recommendation. “The standards are going to address this with the understanding that if the world can move away from plastic, great, but in the meantime, before that’s feasible, we’d better move where we can,” said Amy Larkin, PR3’s co-founder and director, who pointed out that moving to reusable plastics will still make a huge dent in overall plastic demand. “Let’s get rid of 90 to 95 percent of the production of single-use packaging.”

    Rather than calling for specific container shapes and sizes, PR3 has drafted a few broad requirements — like that containers be designed to “optimize durability,” and that they follow “best practices for recyclability.” They must comply with existing food-safety regulations. Optionally, companies may label products with a universal symbol — kind of like the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” used to indicate recyclability. Such a symbol doesn’t yet exist for reuse, but PR3 has proposed one: a black, white, or orange rose-like pictogram along with the word “reuse.”

    More specific design elements are included only as recommendations. To make washing easier, for instance, PR3’s draft says reusable containers should have interior angles no smaller than 90 degrees, as well as “feet” to maximize airflow during drying. They also say containers should “nest” to save storage space and make transportation easier.

    A stack of greenish reusale containers on a shelf
    A stack of reusable plastic to-go containers at a restaurant in Denver. Hyoung Chang / The Denver Post via Getty Images

    This flexible approach fits into a category that EMF calls “bespoke with shared standards,” where containers can vary from brand to brand while still sharing common characteristics — like where labels are placed, or the width of a bottle’s mouth. This leaves big brands free to design their own unique packaging if they want to. 

    PR3’s approach aims to appease big businesses by allowing them to keep using containers that look and feel very different, so long as they conform to a set of broad requirements. “Product companies want that kind of autonomy,” Juska told Grist.

    Coca-Cola, for example, sets itself apart with its iconic — and patented — hourglass-shaped Coke bottle. And beauty companies are notorious for differentiated packaging: Walking down the perfume aisle, you might see bottles shaped like everything from a high-heeled shoe to a kitten.

    Many reuse advocates want to do away with those unique container designs, going even further than what PR3 has suggested in order to enable sharing among different companies — a situation where packaging is considered “pooled” within a market. So instead of an extravagant diversity of perfume bottles, all fragrances might come in interchangeable cylindrical jars.

    A small number of companies — especially in Europe — already do this. For example, through a German program called Mach Mehrweg Pool (roughly translated to “Make Reuse Pool”), brands share a collection of identical glass jars that can be filled with different foods. When consumers return the empty containers to a supermarket, a logistics provider picks them up and brings them back to food producers for cleaning. Another organization called the German Wells Cooperative runs a similar program for reusable soda and water bottles, counting more than 150 beverage makers as members.

    Other companies that have experimented with pooling, however, have only done so within the brands they control. Coca-Cola, for instance, has a “universal bottle” initiative in South America in which a single, standardized reusable bottle can be used for all of its beverage brands — Fanta, Sprite, Coke, and others. But the initiative is not universal across company lines; you couldn’t refill a Coke bottle with Pepsi. 

    Tom Szaky, founder and CEO of Loop, a “global reuse platform” that is represented on the PR3 panel, said standard-setters shouldn’t try to resist companies’ impulses to differentiate. Brands should be allowed to experiment with both unique and standardized reusable packaging and then “let the market decide” which is preferable, he told Grist. Others, like Kaufman, have raised concerns that pooling might not make sense for some particular products — like baby food, since shared containers can increase the risk of contamination, and babies are more vulnerable to illness.

    There is already evidence, however, that companies are leaving money on the table by choosing not to pool their containers. According to EMF’s direct comparison of pooled and nonpooled standardized packaging, pooling containers reduces the cost of reusable packaging systems by up to 28 percent.
    Plus, at least some intervention — perhaps regulation or financial incentives — is likely required to create conditions that are more favorable to reusables; a hands-off, market-led approach is what has led to today’s proliferation of throwaway plastics. EMF’s modeling suggests that only reuse systems “built collaboratively from the outset” can reach cost parity with single-use. Exactly what that collaboration will look like, however, is unclear, since the kinds of government regulations that could help foster it might be incompatible with the United States’ free market ethos and antitrust laws. Internationally, some cities and countries have done more than the U.S. to promote reuse, but none has gone as far as what EMF is suggesting.

    Plus, at least some intervention — perhaps regulation or financial incentives — is likely required to create conditions that are more favorable to reusables; a hands-off, market-led approach is what has led to today’s proliferation of throwaway plastics. EMF’s modeling suggests that only reuse systems “built collaboratively from the outset” can reach cost parity with single-use. Exactly what that collaboration will look like, however, is unclear, since the kinds of government regulations that could help foster it might be incompatible with the United States’ free market ethos and antitrust laws. Internationally, some cities and countries have done more than the U.S. to promote reuse, but none has gone as far as what EMF is suggesting.

    Even in the absence of robust regulations, PR3’s standards are likely to nudge the country — and the world — in the right direction. Once they’re finalized, PR3 plans to submit them to the American National Standards Institute, the U.S. member organization of the ISO. From there, the standards would be opened up to public comment, potential revisions, and then final approval. PR3 would have to go through a separate submission and review process to get the standards approved by member countries of the ISO. 

    What would happen next is unclear. Other ISO standards — like for information security and energy efficiency — have been voluntarily adopted by individual companies or industry groups, either because they contain genuinely useful guidance on a complicated issue or because they increase businesses’ perceived trustworthiness. 

    ISO standards can also inform government regulations and international agreements. According to Juska, PR3 is already in talks with Canada’s environment ministry to shape new rules on reusable packaging, and the same thing could happen in any number of other jurisdictions. Juska is also hopeful that PR3’s standards will be acknowledged by or incorporated into the United Nations’ global treaty to end plastic pollution. The latest draft of the treaty mentions the need for standards — including for reusable packaging systems — some three dozen times, which Juska said is indicative of how “desperately needed” they are.

    “If we want everyone to move in the same direction, we need to set some design parameters for how we want the system to function,” she said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What will it take to get companies to embrace reusable packaging? on May 1, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • PNG businesses want grants, not loans over Black Wednesday riots

    By Dale Luma in Port Moresby

    “We want grants and not concessional loans,” is the crisp message from Papua New Guinea businesses directly affected by the Black Wednesday looting four months ago.

    The businesses, which lost millions after the January 10 rioting and looting, say they need grants as part of the government’s Restock and Rebuild assistance — and not more loans.

    This is the message delivered by the PNG Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Monday after news that the national government has so far given K7 million (NZ$3.2 million) in funding to several affected companies to pay staff salaries.

    President Ian Tarutia said the business coalition representing impacted businesses would be meeting with the Chief Secretary and his inter-agency team this week to find out when the assistance will be given.

    Their message at this crucial meeting will be the same — no loans!

    “The real impact assistance that is truly beneficial is rebuilding and restocking,” Tarutia said.

    “We will meet with the chief secretary hopefully this week to get an update on this component of the government’s relief assistance to affected businesses.

    Concessional rate loans
    Tarutia explained that an initial National Executive Council decision was to provide loans at concessional rates and managed through the National Development Bank.

    “Business Coalition’s response was grants and not loans are the preferred assistance. Meeting with the Chief Secretary this week hopefully can resolve this.”

    He also indicated that in the initial impact by businesses compiled in late January, the estimated cost for rebuild and restock covering loss of property, cost of clean up, loss of goods was K774 million.

    “This was for 64 businesses mainly in Port Moresby but a few in Goroka, Rabaul, Kundiawa and Kavieng,” he said.

    “Out of this K774 million, an amount of K273 million was submitted as needed immediately.

    “Business Coalition met last Saturday morning. Business houses are looking forward to meeting Chief Secretary Pomaleu and his inter-agency team this week to find out when the assistance for rebuilding destroyed properties and restocking looted inventory will be given.”

    Tarutia acknowledged that so far, the government had paid out approximately K7 million in wage support for businesses which includes eight businesses including CPL.

    Businesses acknowledge the wage support to date and are appreciative on behalf of their affected staff.

    Dale Luma is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • First Nations woman one of seven global winners of prestigious Goldman prize for environmental activism

    Murrawah Johnson recognised for role in landmark legal case to block coalmine backed by Clive Palmer

    For Murrawah Johnson, the impacts of the climate crisis and the destruction of land to mine the fossil fuels that drive it are more than simple questions of atmospheric physics or environmental harm.

    “What colonisation hasn’t already done, climate change will do in terms of finalising the assimilation process for First Nations people,” the 29-year-old Wirdi woman from Queensland says.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

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

  • UN-led panel aims to tackle abuses linked to mining for ‘critical minerals’

    Panel of nearly 100 countries to draw up guidelines for industries that mine raw materials used in low-carbon technology

    A UN-led panel of nearly 100 countries is to draw up new guidelines to prevent some of the environmental damage and human rights abuses associated with mining for “critical minerals”.

    Mining for some of the key raw materials used in low-carbon technology, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, has been associated with human rights abuses, child labour and violence, as well as grave environmental damage.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Violent clashes in New Caledonia as tensions rise over nickel pact

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    Fresh clashes in New Caledonia have erupted in the suburbs of Nouméa between security forces and pro-independence protesters who oppose a nickel pact offering French assistance to salvage the industry.

    The clashes, involving firearms, teargas and stone-throwing, went on for most of yesterday, blocking access roads to the capital Nouméa, as well as the nearby townships of Saint-Louis and Mont-Dore.

    Traffic on the Route Provinciale 1 (RP1) was opened and closed several times, including when a squadron of French gendarmes intervened to secure the area by firing long-range teargas.

    The day began with tyres being burnt on the road and then degenerated into violence from some balaclava-clad members of the protest group, who started throwing stones and sometimes using firearms and Molotov cocktails, authorities alleged.

    Security forces said one of their motorbike officers, a woman, was assaulted and her vehicle was stolen.

    Two of the protesters were reported to have been arrested for throwing stones.

    Banners were deployed, some reading “Kanaky not for sale”, others demanding that New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou (pro-independence) resign.

    Northern mining sites also targeted
    Other incidents took place in the northern town of La Foa, in the small mining village of Fonwhary, near a nickel extraction site, where Société Le Nickel trucks were not allowed to use the road.

    Pro-independence protesters banners demanding President Louis Mapou’s resignation – Photo NC la 1ère
    Pro-independence protesters banners demand territorial President Louis Mapou resign. Image: 1ère TV

    Mont-Dore Mayor Eddy Lecourieux told local Radio Rythme Bleu they had the right to demonstrate, “but they could have done that peacefully”.

    “Instead, there’s always someone who starts throwing stones.”

    At dusk, the Saint-Louis and Mont-Dore areas were described as under control, but security forces, including armoured vehicles, were kept in place.

    “On top of that, there are more marches scheduled for this weekend,” Lecourieux said.

    Pro-independence protesters oppose current plans to have a French Constitutional amendment endorsed by France’s two houses of Parliament.

    As a first step of this Parliamentary process, last week, the Senate endorsed the text, but with some amendments.

    Opposing marches
    Pro-France movements also want to march on the same day in support of the amendment.

    If endorsed, it would allow French citizens to vote at New Caledonia’s local elections, provided they have been residing there for an uninterrupted 10 years.

    Pro-independent parties, however, strongly oppose the project, saying this would be tantamount to making indigenous Kanaks a minority at local polls, and would open the door to a “recolonisation” of New Caledonia through demographics.

    A similar high-risk configuration of two marches took place on March 28 in downtown Nouméa, with more than 500 French security forces deployed to keep both groups away from each other.

    French authorities are understood to be holding meeting after meeting to fine-tune the security setup ahead of the weekend.

    Florent Perrin, the president of Mont-Dore’s “Citizens’ Association”, told media local residents were being “taken hostage” and the unrest “must cease”.

    He urged political authorities to “make decisions on all political and economic issues” New Caledonia currently faces.

    Perrin called on the local population to remain calm, but invited them to “individually lodge complaints” based on “breach of freedom of circulation”.

    “On our side too, tensions are beginning to run high, so we have to remain calm and not respond to those acts of provocation,” he said.

    Pro-independence protesters blockade the village of La Foa on 9 April 2024 - Photo NC la 1ère
    Pro-independence indigenous Kanak protesters in New Caledonia blockade the village of La Foa yesterday. Image: 1ère TV

    The ‘nickel pact’ issue
    The clashes and blockades took place on the same day the local Congress was discussing whether it should give the green light to New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou to sign the “nickel pact”, worth around 200 million euros (NZ$358 million) in French emergency aid.

    In return, France is asking that New Caledonia’s whole nickel industry should undergo a far-reaching slate of reforms in order to make nickel less expensive and therefore more attractive on the world market.

    The pact aims to salvage New Caledonia’s embattled nickel industry and its three factories — one in the north of the main island, Koniambo (KNS), and two in the south, Société le Nickel (SLN), a subsidiary of French giant Eramet, and Prony Resources.

    KNS’ nickel-processing operations were put in “sleep”, non-productive mode in February after its major financier, Anglo-Swiss Glencore, said it could no longer sustain losses totalling 14 billion euros (NZ$25 billion) over the past 10 years, and that it was now seeking an entity to buy its 49 percent shares.

    The other two companies, SLN and Prony, are also facing huge debts and a severe risk of bankruptcy due to the new nickel conditions on the world market, now dominated by new players such as Indonesia, which produces a much cheaper and abundant metal.

    New ultimatum from Northern Province
    On Tuesday, Northern province President Paul Néaoutyine added further pressure by threatening to suspend all permits for mining activities in his province’s nine sites, where southern nickel companies are also extracting.

    In a release, Néaoutyine made references to payment guarantees deadlines on April 10 that had not been honoured by SLN.

    It is understood SLN’s owner, Eramet, was scheduled to meet in a general meeting in Paris later on Tuesday.

    The French pact — France is also a stakeholder in Eramet — would also help SLN provide longer-term guarantees.

    Southern province President and Les Loyalists (pro-France) party leader Sonia Backès alleged on Tuesday that Néaoutyine wants to do everything he can to shut down SLN and block the nickel pact

    “Now things are very clear — before it was all undercover; now it’s out in the open,” she said.

    “Now we will do everything to maintain SLN, because this means 3000 jobs at stake.”

    Congress dragging its feet
    Yesterday, New Caledonia’s Congress was holding a meeting behind closed doors to again discuss the French pact.

    The Congress decided to postpone its decision and, instead, suggested setting up a “special committee” to further examine the pact and the condition it is tied to, and more generally, “the nickel industry’s current challenges”.

    Opponents to the agreement mainly argue that it would pose a risk of “loss of sovereignty” for New Caledonia on its precious metal resource.

    They also consider the nickel industry stake-holding companies are not committing enough and that, instead, New Caledonia’s government is asked to raise up to US$80 million (NZ$132 million), mainly by way of new taxes imposed on taxpayers.

    Last week, a group of Congressmen, mostly from pro-independence Union Calédonienne, one of the four components of the pro-independence FLNKS, with the backing of one pro-France party, Avenir Ensemble, had a motion adopted to postpone one more time the signing of the pact.

    President Mapou defies pro-independence MPs
    President Louis Mapou, himself from the pro-independence side, urged the supporters of the motion to “let [him] sign” last week during a Congress public sitting.

    “Let’s do it . . .  Authorise us to go at it . . .  What are you afraid of?” he said.

    “Are we afraid of our militants?”

    Mapou said if there was no swift Congress response and support to sign the pact, for which he himself had asked the Congress for endorsement, he would “take [his] responsibility” and go ahead anyway.

    “I will honour the commitment I made to the French State.”

    He said if they wanted to to sanction him with a motion of no confidence to go ahead. He was not afraid of this.

    Mapou also told the pro-independence side in Congress that he believed they khad ept postponing any Congress decision “because you want to engage in negotiations as part of [New Caledonia’s] political agreements”.

    Last week, Backès, who expressed open support for Mapou’s “courage”, told Radio Rythme Bleu she and Mapou had both received death threats.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific nations gradually embracing Elon Musk’s Starlink

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Broadband satellite service provider Starlink is now being used in the Pacific but not always legally, for now.

    In Vanuatu, border workers are confiscating equipment.

    Telecom regulator Brian Winji said people using the service had signed up overseas — likely in Australia and New Zealand — and have brought the equipment into the country.

    “They smuggle it into Vanuatu without customs knowing,” Winiji said.

    “[Starlink] is not allowed to operate inside Vanuatu without getting a proper licence.”

    Starlink was given a temporary restricted licence to operate after severe back-to-back cyclones battered the country. But this was only 20 units given to the National Disaster Management Office and it lapses by the end of April.

    Anyone else using Starlink is breaking the rules.

    Winji said Starlink had not fully applied to operate in Vanuatu and he does not know when they will be operational.

    ‘Future competitive environment’
    Cook Islands telecommunications regulator chair Bernard Hill said regulators who were banning the use of Starlink might have an “overinflated view” of their importance.

    “They feel slightly offended by the fact that this happens without their, ‘oh, you’re allowed to do that’. In deregulated markets, like Cook Islands, like New Zealand, the rule is we let you do it until there’s a good reason to say no,” he said.

    “They approached me about a licence 18 months ago, they still haven’t resolved on their local structure but unlike the other regulators, I have authorised the roaming of devices purchased in New Zealand and Australia.”

    Hill said he did not know the exact number of people using the service, but it has been enough to have a competitive influence on Vodafone Cook Islands — the nation’s biggest broadband provider.

    “I can’t say Vodafone is happy about it but they are at least realistic about this being part of the future competitive environment and I believe they’re doing the best to cope with the challenge that presents them.”

    In Fiji, Starlink has already been given a licence to operate but it has not yet set up the service locally.

    The Telecommunications Authority chairperson David Eyre said it could be operational by the middle of this month.

    He said people who had already brought Starlink equipment into the country would need to switch over to the local service when it was running.

    “Starlink is in the process of finalising the operational procedures, processes and what not in preparation for launch, we are encouraged that they’re probably going to launch soon and when I say soon, probably early quarter two,” Eyre said.

    Starlink satellite dish
    A Starlink satellite dish, an internet constellation operated by SpaceX, is installed on the wall of an apartment building. Image: RNZ/123rf

    Delivering high-speed internet
    The company, owned by tech billionaire Elon Musk, promises to deliver high-speed internet to the remotest regions by using thousands of satellites orbiting close to the planet.

    Hill said Starlink and other low earth orbit satellite companies should be a good fit for the Cook Islands Pa Enua (outer islands) that struggle with poor communications infrastructure.

    Eyre said remote connectivity in Fiji was a consideration for giving the licence.

    “Coverage in those areas is probably one of the main reasons why we have licensed Starlink here in Fiji, to serve the remotest of the remote.”

    In other Pacific nations, Starlink has become or is becoming available.

    Papua New Guinea gave the service an operation licence at the beginning of this year and last month Samoa’s cabinet did the same.

    Hill said he did not think Starlink and similar companies would make other forms of receiving internet irrelevant.

    He said countries needed back up options in case something goes wrong — like the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Haa’pai volcano eruption that destroyed Tonga’s internet cable.

    Hill said as more Pacific economies rely on internet services, being cut off could be disastrous.

    “From the point of view of redundancy and resilience having access to services from overhead as well as undersea is pretty important.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘Innovation baton’ passes from large firms to SMEs

    Small and medium-sized enterprises now spend more on research and development than large businesses, with the growth of local venture capital and government support helping to alleviate some financing constraints. In a speech on Thursday, Reserve Bank assistant governor for the financial system, Dr Brad Jones, said that SMEs “appear to be taking over the…

    The post ‘Innovation baton’ passes from large firms to SMEs appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • What Sam Mostyn’s appointment as Governor General means

    This morning we woke to the news that Sam Mostyn will be the next Governor General of Australia. Since the announcement, I’ve been wading through emails and social media posts celebrating the appointment. I agree with all of them, but I’ve been struggling to articulate the ‘why’.  It obviously goes beyond ‘yay, a second women in the role – Quentin wasn’t just a blip’, but why else is it important that Sam Mostyn has been appointed? Then I remembered a photo.

    I first saw the image in October 2011. It showed Canberra’s Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, standing next to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Governor General, Quentin Bryce, as they greeted Queen Elizabeth II on her arrival in Canberra. I remember being stunned by the image of those four women exchanging pleasantries as though they were just doing their jobs, rather than changing our world. In that moment I believed that gender equality was a forgone conclusion – it would just be a matter of time.

    Twelve years later, I have just returned from the Commission on the Status of Women in New York.  CSW is the UN’s only forum for discussing gender equality. I have been participating in CSW for 11 years – almost the entire time since that photo of four women was taken at Fairbairn airport. In that decade we have seen the promise of 2011 stumble badly.

    This year, I spent my time at CSW defending women’s right to choose what happens to their own bodies, their right to say no to sex, their right to live lives free from violence and gendered poverty. There is a global push back against women’s human rights, and I can confidently say it’s growing in strength.  It turns out gender equality is not inevitable.

    Women's bodies. By Antonio Rodriguez

    Helen Dalley-Fisher says she has spent her time at the UN defending women’s right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Picture: Adobe/Antonio Rodriguez

    On the other hand, at CSW I had the opportunity to work alongside a group of Australian business leaders who are members of the Champions of Change Coalition. These men and women have embraced the idea that gender equality requires both commitment and action. They have taken creative and sometimes counterintuitive steps to reduce gender wage gaps and build women’s leadership in their organisations.

    They have put real resources behind these efforts and have provided leadership to others. It’s unusual to see business represented at CSW, and it was instructive to watch the surprised reactions of leaders and advocates from other countries as they listened to the Champions of Change describe their successes.

    Sam Mostyn is the former President of Chief Executive Women. In that role she worked collaboratively and effectively to promote exactly the approach taken by the Champions of Change. She demonstrated that she understands that words will only get us so far and action to achieve gender equality is not something which can be left to politicians and activists.

    In her position as Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce (WEET) chair, Sam painted a picture of a world where women were not routinely sidelined in the economy. She said: “We talk about a world in which care is shared by men and women, where flexible work is available to all, where governments put a gender lens on every single policy outcome, every Budget measure.”

    Putting forward a report full of ambitious recommendations, she further suggested Australia could be transformed: “We’d have a place where women were a powerhouse within that economy. We’d be respected, we’d be equal and we would be celebrated as part of an economy, not seen as outside it.”

    We’ve all heard the line ‘if you can’t see it, you can’t be it’. It’s a true statement, but it doesn’t quite tell the whole story. It’s not just a matter of having occasional women providing inspiration to individuals.

    Ultimately, appointing women to positions of leadership matters both because of the inspiration they provide, but also because we are what we do.

    Australians may have all the best intentions in the world to achieve gender equality, but until we are doing gender equality, intentions don’t mean a thing. In a way it’s not the first or second woman in a role that matters. It’s the nineth or maybe the 20th. The appointment which really matters is the one we don’t think to comment on, because it’s become normal. That’s what Sam Mostyn and the Champions of Change understand: gender equality needs to be business as usual for everyone.

    Sam Mostyn, Chair of ANROWS - NPC Address, Wed 02 September 2020

    Sam Mostyn, Chair of ANROWS – NPC Address, Wed 02 September 2020. Picture: National Press Club

    Sam Mostyn is a clever and subtle operator; a highly intelligent woman with energy to burn who understands the importance of gender equality and is ambitious in the scope of her thinking and actions. Sam is an excellent appointment because of who she is. She’s an excellent appointment because she will do the job well. But most of all, she’s an excellent appointment because the act of appointing her is a sign that we are walking the talk.

    Unbelievably, I can’t find that photo. It doesn’t seem to be archived anywhere online, despite being a monumental moment in Australian history. That alone tells me it’s important for us to keep pushing to normalise gender equality, and to celebrate and cherish those who do the same. Congratulations, Sam and thanks.

    The post What Sam Mostyn’s appointment as Governor General means appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Baltimore bridge crash ship carrying toxic waste to Sri Lanka, says Mirror

    Asia Pacific Report

    The Singapore cargo ship Dali chartered by Maersk, which collapsed the Baltimore bridge in the United States last month, was carrying 764 tonnes of hazardous materials to Sri Lanka, reports Colombo’s Daily Mirror.

    The materials were mostly corrosives, flammables, miscellaneous hazardous materials, and Class-9 hazardous materials — including explosives and lithium-ion batteries — in 56 containers.

    According to the Mirror, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still “analysing the ship’s manifest to determine what was onboard” in its other 4644 containers when the ship collided with Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, collapsing it, on March 26.

    The e-Con e-News (ee) news agency reports that prior to Baltimore, the Dali had called at New York and Norfolk, Virginia, which has the world’s largest naval base.

    Colombo was to be its next scheduled call, going around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, taking 27 days.

    According to ee, Denmark’s Maersk, transporter for the US Department of War, is integral to US military logistics, carrying up to 20 percent of the world’s merchandise trade annually on a fleet of about 600 vessels, including some of the world’s largest ships.

    The US Department of Homeland Security has also now deemed the waters near the crash site as “unsafe for divers”.

    13 damaged containers
    An “unclassified memo” from the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said a US Coast Guard team was examining 13 damaged containers, “some with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and/or hazardous materials [HAZMAT] contents.

    The team was also analysing the ship’s manifest to determine if any materials could “pose a health risk”.

    CISA officials are also monitoring about 6.8 million litres of fuel inside the Dali for its “spill potential”.

    Where exactly the toxic materials and fuel were destined for in Sri Lanka was not being reported.

    Also, it is a rather long way for such Hazmat, let alone fuel, to be exported, “at least given all the media blather about ‘carbon footprint’, ‘green sustainability’ and so on”, said the Daily Mirror.

    “We can expect only squeaky silence from the usual eco-freaks, who are heavily funded by the US and EU,” the newspaper commented.

    “It also adds to the intrigue of how Sri Lanka was so easily blocked in 2022 from receiving more neighbourly fuel, which led to the present ‘regime change’ machinations.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The U.S. Defended the Overseas Business Interests of Baby Formula Makers. Kids Paid the Price.


    This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • French ‘nickel pact’ to bail out New Caledonia’s industry delayed

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    The signing of a “nickel pact” to salvage New Caledonia’s embattled industry has not been signed by the end of March, as initially announced by French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire.

    Le Maire had hinted at the date of March 25 last week, but New Caledonia’s territorial government President Louis Mapou wants to have his Congress endorse the pact before he signs anything.

    The Congress is scheduled to put the French pact (worth hundreds of millions of euro) to the debate this Wednesday.

    The pact is supposed to bail out New Caledonia’s nickel industry players from a grave crisis, caused by the current state of the world nickel prices and the market dominance of Indonesia which produces much cheaper nickel in large quantities.

    The proposed aid agreement, however, has strings attached: in return, New Caledonia’s nickel industry must undertake a far-reaching reform plan to increase its attraction and decrease its production costs.

    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.

  • Investigation: powerbroker Mark Leibler and Australia’s Zionist connections with Israel’s defence web

    Sonnie Lipshut

    Australia giving Israel’s bomb-maker Elbit Systems a $917m defence deal is just the latest in a long and secretive history of military and aerospace activity. For the first time, Jommy Tee investigates Australian Zionist corporate connections with Israel which stretch to Australia’s most powerful lobbyist Mark Leibler.

    Senior executives of peak the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), have been associated with companies that had business links with the Israeli military and aviation company, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) – formerly known as Israel Aircraft Industries.  

    The previously undisclosed links, which stretch back as far as 1980, mean prominent Zionist lobbyists – including the doyen of the Australian Jewish community, Mark Leibler – were engaging with Australian and Israeli politicians and senior government officials, while at the same time companies they established, or were directors of, conducted business with the aviation, drone, military aircraft and weapons behemoth, IAI.  

    Israel Aerospace Industries and its subsidiaries, won numerous lucrative Australian government defence contracts while the business relationships were in place. 

    IAI sales to the ADF include: Electronic Warfare (EW) systems for AP-3C Orion aircraft, Maritime Patrol Radar for Orion aircraft, supply of the Heron UAV systems to the RAAF which were operational in Afghanistan for 5 years, ECM pods for FA/18 Classic Hornets, Wedgetail ESM and many others.

    On behalf of IAI, the companies acted as sales, marketing and distribution representatives, political lobbyists, and as a corporate agent.

    There is nothing illegal in any of the arrangements and there no suggestion that the companies and its executives or its employees were involved in any wrongdoing. 

    However, it raises questions about potential conflict of interests and whether those interests were disclosed to relevant Australian federal and state government ministers and officials, and the Zionist organisations, over the decades.  

    Any discussion regarding bilateral links between Australia and Israel involving technology, trade, defence and security potentially was a potential cross-over point.

    The complex web of business arrangements can only be understood by detailing the intersection of Mark Leibler and his firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, and the Intercorp group of companies and the Lipshut family and their respective relationships with IAI.

    In the beginning, there was 1980

    A shelf company was formed in late June 1980. The company went by the innocuous name of Eastfleet Pty Ltd. The paperwork was lodged by law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL) and the directors of the company were three ABL solicitors, including Arnold Bloch and Mark Leibler. The secretary of the company was Mark Leibler.

    Within a month, Eastfleet changed directors with Sonnie Lipshut (and another business partner) becoming the directors. The company’s name was changed to Intercorp (Australia) Pty Ltd.

    Israel, Gaza and Australian politics: master lobbyist Mark Leibler reveals how power really works

    Documents lodged by Intercorp (Australia) with the corporate regulator declare the company to be “Trustee – Import/Export Consultants”.

    The company predominantly flew under the radar, aside from an occasional mention in the Australian jewish press where the company was described as an importer of high technology products from Israel.

    On September 4, 1984, the company took onboard two additional directors – the respective spouses of the existing directors. The change saw Sonnie Lipshut’s spouse – Pearl Lipshut – becoming a director.

    1984 – a new(ish) executive broom at the Zionist Federation of Australia

    In April 1984, Mark Leibler was elected president of the ZFA, it followed a stint a vice-president of the organisation and as president of the State Zionist Council (SZC) Victoria.  

    Joining Leibler at the ZFA, was Pearl Lipshut who took up the role of executive director.

    It was no surprise that the president and executive director formed a strong team, as they had previously worked together at the State Zionist Council in identical roles. Pearl Lipshut was executive director of the SZC from 1977 to 1984 while Leibler was president between 1980 and 1984.

    Mark Leibler at IAI visit. Source: SMH

    Mark Leibler at IAI visit. Source: SMH

    Pearl Lipshut described it as:  “Working with Mark Leibler (then State Zionist Council president) meant keeping my mind switched on in top gear. It was a natural progression to go from there to the Federation when Mark became its president, as we agreed we worked well together.”

    In an interview with the Australian Jewish News published on September 14, 1984 – ten days after she was appointed director of Intercorp (Australia) – she said her husband represented “several hi-tech Israeli companies in Australia”.  

    There was no mention of her directorship in the company.

    1985: the incredible flights of VH-JJA

    Aside from manufacturing military aircraft, IAI also produced corporate jets including the Westwind 1124A. Historical aircraft society websites detail a Westwind, with the registration number VH-JJA, being registered to Pel-Air Aviation, a Sydney-based firm, in March 1984.

    At the beginning of 1985 the plane made several flights to and from Papua New Guinea. Some of those flights came under the investigation of law enforcement officials and were the subject of a PNG Commission of Inquiry.

    VH-JJA was chartered by Peter Johnstone with the intention of flying from Sydney to Bangkok return by January 30, 1985. Johnstone, living in Cronulla, and a man of little obvious wealth, hired the jet at the rate of $1500 an hour – at an all up cost of $52,000. 

    Johnstone had links to various Sydney criminals, drug traffickers, corrupt NSW police and assorted con-men.

    The Westwind jet, crewed by two pilots, left Sydney on 14 January and flew to Singapore via Darwin. The plane stopped in Darwin and picked up two sets of diving equipment and seven oxygen bottles.

    The pilots met up with Johnstone, who had flown to Singapore the day before on a commercial flight. From there Johnstone again flew on ahead to Bangkok and where he again rendezvoused with the pilots of VH-JJA on January 18. The party of three spent 48 hours in Phuket, and picked up four Dutch people Johnstone had befriended in Bangkok. Johnstone picked up the tab for his 6 friends.  

    The group then returned to Bangkok, where Johnstone met with a business acquaintance described by the PNG Inquiry chief as one of the world’s biggest drug exporters.

    Business apparently went well and Johnstone instructed his Westwind crew to fly to Palau – a world class diving destination. VH-JJA departed Bangkok on January 25 and landed in Palau.

    After four days of scuba diving, Johnstone then instructed the pilots to fly to Wewak in north PNG. Johnstone changed his mind en route and directed the pilots to instead fly to Port Moresby. From there, the plane was to fly to Sydney, but just before the plane was to depart Johnstone turned to his two pilots and said “Hey, I think I’ll get off here. I have some business to attend to….”. The jet departed Port Moresby, sans Johnstone, and landed in Sydney where there was a brief and cursory search of VH-JJA at Sydney airport. Nothing was found.

    Johnstone having bailed from VH-JAA, spent the night in Port Moresby before returning to Sydney the next day on an Air Niugini flight.

    The Commission of Inquiry found the likely purpose of Johnstone’s trip was to collect drugs in Thailand. He had been careful not to fly out of Australia, or back in, aboard the Westwind jet, knowing he was likely under police surveillance. 

    As Pel-Air Aviation regularly flew in and out of PNG delivering freight a routine flight by the Westwind was unlikely to arouse much suspicion. The inquiry reported: “We think the purpose of the trip was to pick up drugs in Thailand … and we believe that he may have succeeded”.  The inquiry raised the possibility that the drugs could have been concealed in the diving tanks.

    The drama for VH-JJA was not yet over, barely a month later it was embroiled in further drama.

    The anonymity of Intercorp (Australia), and its business dealings shattered on the runway of Port Moresby on March 6, 1985. Sonnie Lipshut was returning from Papua New Guinea after meeting Prime Minister, Michael Somare.  

    Hot-footing it

    The trip turned out to be anything but an “under the radar” business trip.

    Together with two other Australian businessmen – John Johnson and John Aston – Lipshut had flown to PNG to discuss a series of aviation deals with Prime Minister Michael Somare.

    Johnson and Aston were connected to companies associated with Pel-Air Aviation who were seeking new air freight services.

    As the three men were on the Pel-Air plane – an Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind jet with registration VH-JJA – a drug search was conducted, or attempted, depending on conflicting official reports.  

    The attempted search by PNG police and customs, followed a tip-off from the Australian Federal Police. Official reports from the PNG National Drug Squad and Customs make for incredible reading.

    PNG Police and Customs drug detection dogs gave positive signs when sniffing out a panel in the cabin of the plane and when sniffing out baggage but no drugs were found.

    The passengers of VH-JJA rang Somare advising him the plane had been detained. Somare, together with his Foreign Affairs Minister, the Minister for Justice and several Prime Minister’s Department officials hot-footed it out to the airport, getting there after the search ended.

    The official reports also detail how police were unable to search another Pel-Air plane which had left earlier in the day. The respective pilots of VH-JJA and the other Pel-Air had previously been seen leaving the airport and taking a rental car – rented in the name of one of the VH-JJA passengers.

    The political heat was such that a commission of inquiry was established to investigate the business deals and the circumstances surrounding the search – and then later extended to include investigation of drug trafficking operations.

    Source: SMH

    The reporting of the allegations and the inquiry shone a light on Sonnie Lipshut and Intercorp (Australia). According to media reports, Johnson and Aston introduced Lipshut to the PNG Government. 

    Intercorp intrigue

    Lipshut was there in PNG to ink a deal for the PNG defence force to purchase three Israeli Arava planes. Intercorp Australia was the Pacific agent for Israel Aerospace Industries – the manufacturer of the Arava planes. 

    This was the first public mention that Intercorp (Australia) was connected to IAI. 

    The official report from the PNG police named Mr Sonnie Lipshut as being employed by Intercorp Australia.  

    Lipshut’s name appears to have been formally revealed by the Australian press as being a passenger on the plane in September 1985 – some 6 months after the incident.

    Somare was forced to make a statement to the PNG Parliament in June 1985 advising Intercorp acted as a sub-agent for Israeli Aircraft Industries.

    The PNG Prime Minister added that the three Aravas were purchased because “IAI provided a package – and a contract – which we found acceptable and which our defence and other advisers [found] acceptable.

    PNG “conned”

    The Commission of Inquiry heard PNG had been “conned” in buying the three Arava military aircraft for $A14 million – had the PNG government bought the planes direct from IAI they would have saved $A1.3 million. Counsel assisting the Inquiry however said there was insufficient evidence to prove there had been irregular commissions paid. Nonetheless, the Inquiry found two Australian businessmen had split $235,000 for acting as go-betweens in the sale of the Israeli aircraft.

    In the end the Inquiry cleared the parties of any impropriety associated with the aviation deals. the inquiry also criticised Somare for questionable decision-making for intervening in the drug search, however there was nothing untoward in his intervening in the search.

    The Inquiry was unable to confirm or deny that planned heroin shipment landed in Australia

    Shady back stories

    There are however back stories to both John Johnson and John Aston concerning the company they kept and their business respective dealings.  

    Before being associated with Pel-Air Aviation, Johnson was managing director of Jet Charter Airlines, which both traded under the name WIngs Australia and morphed into Wings Australia Pty Ltd – a company that was wound up in December 1984 owing more than $6 million. The assets of Wings Australia were sold to Peldale Pty Ltd – which then changed its name to Pel-Air Aviation.

    Sydney accountant, Henry Victor, in 1981 set up a tax shelter to lease jet aircraft in association with Wings Australia. Wings Australia was part of a tax shelter involving leased jet aircraft created in 1981 by Sydney accountant, Henry Winter.

    Aston’s chequered past, included adversely being named in the 1983 Stewart Royal Commission into drug trafficking. At the time he used his solicitor’s trust account to launder money from the notorious Nugan Hand bank and diverting money to members of the Mr Asia drug syndicate.  

    Employees of Wings Australia and its Phoenix-like reincarnation, Pel-Air Aviation, had been on the radar of crime fighting authorities on suspicion of drug trafficking at the time.

    The plane boss, the plane!

    According to historical aircraft society websites, the Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind 1124A corporate jet was first registered on 28 March 1984 and given the registration number VH-JJA.

    The aircraft’s operator/owner was listed as Wings Australia, although some aviation sites listed the owner as Pel-Air Aviation, the successor company to Wings Australia. But what became of the now infamous IAI Westwind corporate jet, officially registered as VH-JJA?

    The plane’s registration was transferred back to the manufacturer Israel Aircraft Industries sometime in March 1985, the same month as the infamous PNG runway kerfuffle.

    An updated listing of Australian civil aircraft register – sourced from material from the then Department of Aviation – lists IAI’s address as “c/- Arnold Bloch Leibler”.

    One account suggests the plane while in Australia was only ever a demonstrator – the plane returned to Israel in September 1986.

    April to May 1985 – Intercorp V2.0, V2.5 … bye bye Intercorp V1.0

    Immediately after Intercorp (Australia), acting as a sub-agent for IAI, sold three IAI Aravas to the PNG defence forces, the brand expanded.

    Two more companies were created. The first was set up on April 29, 1985, and simply called Intercorp Pty Ltd. The directors of the newly formed company were exactly the same as Intercorp Australia – namely Pearl and Sonnie Lipshut and two other business partners holding the directorships.

    Pearl Lipshut

    Pearl Lipshut. Source: SMH

    The company in annual returns supplied to the corporate regulator listed itself as “Trustee – Commission Agents”.

    A month later the paperwork for Astra Aviation was lodged. Astra Aviation was created to predominantly to sell IAI’s Astra executive jet into the Pacific region, Astra Aviation having acquired the rights to distribute the jet.  

    Only Sonnie Lipshut and the same two other business partners were directors of Astra Aviation.

    Press reports stated by acquiring the rights for Astra and Westwind planes it was the final piece of the jigsaw for Intercorp – now being the distributor of “the total range of IAI products”. The reports stated the Intercorp Group had been representing IAI since 1980 and “for marketing IAI aircraft to various governments and Defence departments”.

    Corporate juggle demonstrator

    Press reports stated that Astra Aviation had based a Westwind 2 demonstrator aircraft in Sydney to assist in marketing and establishing the plane’s identity in Australia. Full spare parts and maintenance support for the new arrangements were to be provided by Pel-Air.

    A decade later, Astra Aviation would change its name to Intercorp Telecommunications. Arnold Bloch Leibler was not involved in establishing either Intercorp or Astra Aviation.

    The upshot of the corporate structuring to act on behalf of IAI was Sonnie Lipshut being a director of all three companies with Pearl Lipshut being a director of two (Intercorp Australia and Intercorp). 

    1985 was also the year that Intercorp (Australia) stopped trading. Documents subsequently lodged with the corporate regulator in 1989 – when the company was liquidated – claimed the company had stopped trading since 1985 and held no assets.  

    For reasons unknown the company changed its name to Rampante Investments in July 1987.

    The liquidation documents showed a liability to PNG Aviation Services and pending legal claim of $605,785, unspecified damages, and interest in respect of a breach of contract.  

    PNG Aviation Services previously acted as the PNG agent for IAI. It was also the subject of the previously mentioned PNG inquiry with regard to its role in selling the government’s corporate jet. The Inquiry cleared PNG Aviation Services and the company and directors won a subsequent defamation case against Prime MInister Michael Somare when in parliament he alleged the company was criminal and negligent. The comments were subsequently reprinted in a government advertisement a few days later and hence the lawsuit.

    1987: Tel Aviv time

    As IAI was gaining a foothold into the Australian and Pacific market, Mark Leibler and Pearl Lipshut wearing their Zionist Federation of Australia hats were busily engaging with politicians of all persuasions in Australia and Israel – successfully pushing pro-Israel policies.

    Leibler and his executive director, Pearl Lipshut, often attended high level meetings together, both in Australia and when travelling to Israel as part of Australian Zionist delegations to Israel.

    One such trip saw a delegation, including Leibler and Pearl Lipshut, landing in Tel Aviv in mid-1987. Press accounts detail some of their journey, including a visit by Leibler to IAI.  

    Leibler was a guest of Moshe Keret, the president of IAI – apparently “in appreciation of his efforts in assisting trade between Australia and Israel”.

    The erstwhile president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, met with senior IAI marketing executives and toured the Bedek division of the company which refurbished aircraft worldwide and an inspection of an Air Force base. 

    The head of the IAI, Moshe Keret presented Leibler with a wall clock inscribed “Mr Mark Leibler, A.O., on the occasion of your visit to Israel Aircraft Industries for all your endeavours”.

    For context, Mark Leibler, through his law firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL), had in 1980 created the shell company that became the first Intercorp company – Intercorp (Australia) that was acting as distributor of IAI product into Australia. As aviation records also indicate ABL was the contact address for IAI’s registration (VH-JJA) of the Westwind plane that gained notoriety in PNG.

    On the other hand, Pearl Lipshut, the executive director of the ZFA, was also a director of two of the three Intercorp companies representing IAI in Australia – while her husband was managing all three companies.

    1988: ZFA director departs – Australia awards $50m contract to Israel Aerospace

    The longstanding working relationship between Mark Leibler and Pearl Lipshut ended in July 1988. The presidential and executive director team had been together for 8 years, spanning two Zionists organisations – the State Zionist Council of Victoria and the Zionist Federation of Australia.

    Pearl Lipshut flagged her departure in March and retired in July. During her professional career she made 20 visits to Israel. Mark Leibler was generous with his praise for his trusty lieutenant declaring she has been a magnificent asset to the Federation and much of what we (ZFA) succeeded in doing would not have been possible without her”.

    Pearl Lipshut would still be involved with the ZFA for another four years, but in an honorary capacity, including responsibility for public relations.

    The same month as Pearl Lipshut’s retirement, and a year after Mark Leibler’s visits to IAI, the state-owned Israeli company struck pay dirt and won a $50m Australian government contract to supply airborne refuelling systems to RAAF for its fleet of Boeing 707s.  

    The deal was, at the time, the biggest ever contract for arms-related equipment from Israel.

    It was also the “first major defence contract awarded to Israeli industry”.

    The contract was awarded ‘despite a series of Australian diplomatic protests” to the Israel government over its treatment of Palestinians.  At the time Australia press reports listed IAI as being “publicly owned” when in reality the company was Israeli state owned.

    The alleged “public ownership” of IAI was used by the Australian government as a justification in support of the IAI deal – claiming the offer came from “a company without direct links to the Israeli government, and was not tied to any other involvement with Israeli military technology”.

    In fact IAI had since the 1960s made military technology – the Gabriel sea-to-sea missile (1964), created a subsidiary company, the defence electronics manufacturer Elta Electronics (1967), built the Nesher fighter aircraft (1970), built fighter bombers for the Israeli airforce (1975), and built the Scout unmanned aircraft (1979).

    Enter Kim Beazley

    Defence minister Kim “Bomber” Beazley was quoted as saying the Israelis had offered the best deal, beating the US multinational Boeing for the job. Boeing would have offered the advantage of “total familiarity with the conversion of its own aircraft design”.

    Instead, the Israeli conversion by IAI’s Bedek Aviation Division – the very same division that Mark Leibler had visited a year earlier  – was going to carry out the work, involving the overseas purchase of the equipment with Australian content comprising installation and manufacturer of some parts via Hawker de Havilland.

    According to one scribe, the inflight refuelling project was a “pet project” of the RAAF and Defence Minister Beazley.

    The deal caused internal friction within ALP, especially from the left-wing of the party, in particular Canberra MP, John Langmore. The decision also caused diplomatic frisson, provoking a protest from the PLO representative in Australia, asking the Australian government not to sign the deal with IAI.  

    Both the internal political and diplomatic tension held no sway and the deal proceeded.

    1989: Intercorp V3.0 …. and another contract to IAI, Hawkey and Hawker

    During May 1989, the law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, established another shelf company – Elderton Pty Ltd, with Mark Leibler a director, as well as secretary of the company. 

    On August 10, the corporate regulator was informed the company had changed its name to Intercorp Defence Industries Pty Ltd. The application for reserving the new name – Intercorp Defence Industries – was lodged with the regulator on 20 July and personally signed by Mark Leibler. 

    The documentation lists the company (renamed from Elderton) as “defence technology suppliers and joint venturers”. Additionally, Intercorp Pty Ltd had provided consent to the proposed name of the newly formed company – no surprises there given the same directorship and ownership interests.

    The day after Leibler signed the name reservation form, he vacated his directorship with Intercorp Defence Industries having Sonnie and Pearl Lipshut and their two business partners from the other Intercorp group of companies stepped into the directorship roles of the new company.

    Roll forward a few months and In November, just ahead of the South Australian state election, Prime Minister Bob Hawke together with South Australian premier, John Bannon, attended the opening of the Australian Submarine Corporation’s construction site in Adelaide.  

    As often happens the occasion was used to electioneer. Hawke announced the awarding of $90 million defence contract to a South Australian company, AWA Defence Industries. The contract was for the installation of new electronic equipment for the RAAF’s P3C Orion Maritime Patrol aircraft.

    $40 million of the contract was to be spent in South Australia, “with much of the work being undertaken by AWA Defence Industries and Hawker de Havilland”.

    In late November a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz surfaced with a story that Elta Electronics – an IAI subsidiary – had won a tender to supply $US60 million worth of electronic and other warfare systems to Australia. The report alluded to an agreement signed with an Australian commercial company to deliver the equipment.

    Confirmation that IAI subsidiary, Elta Electronics, was the principal sub-contractor to AWA Defence Industries was revealed in an article RAAF News in February 1990. “Much of the Electronic Support Measures (ESMs) will come from the principal sub-contractor, ELTA, an Israeli company which is a world leader in this field”.

    It was heady days for IAI and for all those involved.

    1990s to 2007 – the Interregnum

    As the focus of this story is the connection of individuals – while they were officials of Zionist organisations – and their involvement, or their companies involvement, with IAI, our story resumes apace from 2008 onwards.

    The intervening years did contain some events which add context.

    Intercorp (Australia) – the first company in the Intercorp stable and spawned from a Mark Leibler-established shelf company (Eastfleet) – was formally liquidated in 1990.  

    Pearl Lipshut was director of the company from 1984 up until its liquidation, while at the same time being executive director of the Zionist Federation of Australia. Pearl Lipshut’s active involvement with Zionist organisations ended in approximately 1993.  

    However, she remained a director of Intercorp Pty Ltd until 1996 concluding the last of her director’s role with any of the Intercorp-badged companies. Her sons, Garry and Daniel, then became directors of the company and remain so to the present.

    The other business partners (who we have decided to not name) left Intercorp Pty Ltd in 2003. One of the partners remained onboard with Intercorp Defence Industries and Intercorp Telecommunications until 2007.

    Leibler from ZFA to AIJAC

    Meanwhile, Leibler moved from being President of the ZFA in 1994 to become National Chairman of the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council – a position he still holds today.

    For its part, IAI – the Israeli military aviation equipment manufacturer – that was ably represented by in Australia and the Pacific by the Intercorp group of companies registered as a foreign company with the Australia corporate regulator in 1992.

    The nominated corporate agents for the company were Israelis operating out of Canberra. Historical phone directories show that in at least the early 2000s Intercorp was listed in the Canberra phone directory at an address which was also the nominated address IAI had given to the corporate regulator.

    Over this period, Intercorp continued to rep for IAI. IAI continued to sell either directly or indirectly (through subcontractor or joint venturer arrangements) into the Australian government defence market.  

    The Lipshut family even established an annual bursary and scholarship in 2000 for the Australian Air Force, providing aviators below the rank of corporal to complete full-time studies with a view to commission.

    And like sand through an hour glass, Mark Leibler continued to be perhaps Australia’s most effective lobbyists for Israel, gaining the confidence of many an Australian prime minister. All while advising some of the wealthiest members of Australia’s Zionist community such as Frank Lowy’s Westfield group on tax minimisation. 

    One of the key initiatives the AIJAC introduced was the so-called Rambam fellowships. The program ran, and continues to run, sponsored trips for Australian politicians, journalists and senior political staffers – see our previous article.  

    The caravan to Israel – journalist jaunts, political passengers, diplomatic dispatches and jobs lost

     

    Coincidentally, the program was launched by former Defence minister, Kim Beazley in 2003, who while Defence Minister had awarded a $50 million contract to IAI back in 1988.

    2008  – the political lobbyists

    In 2008, the first genuine lobbyist register was introduced. Prior to that time, a weak and ineffectual register had been introduced by the Hawke government in 1983 – a register that was voluntary and not able to be accessed by the public. It was so ineffectual it was abolished in 1996 by the Howard government with nary any opposition.

    The Lobbying Code of Conduct of 2008 established the rule of contact between lobbyist and government.  

    On June 5, Intercorp Pty Ltd registered as a political lobbyist and advised that Israel Aerospace Industries was a client (NB: IAI changed its name in 2006 replacing the “Aircraft” with “Aerospace”). 

    This was of no real surprise given that the business interests of Intercorp and IAI had been bound together since the early 1980s. Historical entries of the register show that IAI has been a continuous client of the registered political lobbyists since that time to the present.

    The new joint venture …

    In 2008, Intercorp formed an informal partnership with Melbourne-based advisory firm SLM to form SLM/Intercorp. When the partnership was formed, Intercorp was spruiked as a company with an “unparalleled track record of success”.  

    Since 1980, the company managed the commercial and marketing needs of Israeli companies including, Israel Aerospace Industries and other defence companies: Rafel, ECI Telecom, and Israel Military Industries “concluding more than $750 million of business”.

    No doubt a tidy bit of work and juicy earner for the company listed as a “Trustee – Commission Agent”.

    The partnership between SLM and Intercorp petered out in approximately 2012.

    Another big deal

    Business got a whole lot better for IAI’s wholly owned subsidiary, Elta Systems, when it was awarded $80 million deal in June with the Australian Defence Force to supply radar jamming electronic countermeasure equipment for military aircraft.

    The contract – the subject of several variations over the ensuing months (and not an uncommon thing in Defence procurements) within the space of a year – eventually settled at $200 million.

    Arnold Bloch Leibler: agents for IAI (2010-2020)

    Business was good for IAI and for whatever reasons they pulled out their local corporate agents at the beginning of 2010. Between 1992 and February 2010, IAI had four different local corporate agents all with ties to the company and all based in Canberra.

    Things changed in February of 2010.

    ABL, the law firm that bore its senior partner’s name took over the role of the local corporate agent for the Israeli state-owned military and aviation company. To be precise, ABL Fiduciary Corporation Pty was nominated as local agent with corporate regulator. The directors of ABL Fiduciary comprise the legal partners in ABL.

    A local agent is liable for all acts and matters of the company and acts as the contact point in all matters pertaining to the corporate regulator.

    The address of IAI for corporate regulatory purposes was given as Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL). It is of course not the first time ABL had directly represented IAI – we go back to 1985 when ABL’s address was provided with regard to the registration of the infamous Israel Aircraft Industries’ VH-JJA Westwind corporate jet.

    This arrangement does not appear to have been an interim measure until IAI sent across another representative from the company, seeing as ABL was appointed to the role for a whole decade (2010 – 2020).  

    Mark Leibler and his firm’s direct involvement can be traced back to 1985, and indirectly through the creation of shelf companies for IAI’s Australian agents/import export consultants/marketing and distribution representatives/political lobbyists – the Intercorp group of companies.

    A decade that many believe was a golden decade for Australia-Israel bi-lateral relations.

    A golden decade of bilateral policy

    The decade from 2010 witnessed much churn across the Australian political landscape. No less than five prime ministers and more than a dozen different defence ministers – the vast majority at some stage during their parliamentary careers having accepted sponsored travel from pro-Israel lobby groups such as the AIJAC.

    When Australia-Israel relations are in play there is little doubt Mark Leibler, and the association he heads, the AIJAC, throw themselves into the policy fray both publicly and privately. The same could be said for the Zionist Federation, of which Jeremy Leibler – Mark’s son and also a partner in ABL – has been the chair since 2018.

    Some of the policy initiatives that were orchestrated during the decade – the latter half of the decade in particular – cover aviation policy, defence policy, technology and innovation, cyber-security, and trade policy.

    From 2016, Israel and Australia signed an Air Services agreement. In 2017, a technological innovation cooperation agreement was signed. This was soon followed by expanded cooperation on national security, defence and cyber security – including strategic talks between officials in 2018 and 2019.

    Australia also opened an Australian trade and defence office in West Jerusalem with intention of facilitating trade, investment and defend industry partnerships. A memorandum of understanding on cyber security cooperation was also signed.

    In 2019, a tax treaty to prevent double taxation and tax avoidance was signed.

    During the decade, major Israeli military hardware companies, including IAI and Intercorp, participated in defence and aviation trade shows. Israeli weapons and military hardware companies were regular participants in the trade shows.

    While the AIJAC and the ZFA were advocating for greater and improved relations between the two countries, often in areas which overlapped with business interests of Israeli military and defence companies, its most senior representative – through ABL – were acting for the state-owned IAI.

    What of Intercorp during the decade?

    Just before the decade commenced, Intercorp Telecommunications (previously Astra Aviation) was deregistered. In 2011, Intercorp Defence Industries (previously the ABL-established shelf company Elderton) was deregistered.

    Another Intercorp branded company, Intercorp Technology, was established in 2012; the directors being the sons (Garry and Daniel) of Pearl and Sonnie Lipshut.

    For its part, Intercorp Pty Ltd, the company established in 1985, went about its business of repping for IAI and being the registered political lobbyist for IAI. At the same time, according to Daniel Lipshut’s CV, while being the managing director of Intercorp, was over the period 2012 to July 2019 the “Managing Director – Australia” for IAI North America.

    Intercorp also starting winning tenders with the Australian government in its own right including a $2 million military science and research contract. On the philanthropy front the Lipshut Family Bursary continued to be given out each year to a worthy Royal Australian Air Force recipient.

    The Australian defence procurement system can be characterised by a revolving door of politicians, lobbyists, consultants, former political staffers, former senior military officers and bureaucrats.

    The complex web of legitimate business and legal interactions between IAI, Intercorp and ABL demonstrates this.

    However, the overlap between the Zionist representation role of the individuals concerned, the potential conflicts of interest between that role and the roles of the companies for which they acted, and how these were managed, and whether they were revealed to governments, suggests a more shadowy underbelly.

    Client State: Australia the “51st state of the US” for deadly weapons production

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Silent Bill Killer: who pillages Australians hardest? It ain’t groceries or power bills, and profits are up 534%

    insurance

    If you reckon Woolies and Coles, Energy Australia or AGL are the worst culprits on cost of living, think again. Prices expert Joel Gibson on the rapacious industry which has jacked up prices by 534%.

    There’s a silent killer in Australian household budgets right now but it’s none of the bills that are getting all the attention. 

    While supermarkets and energy retailers hog the headlines, Industry X is quietly dishing out the biggest price hikes  in 22 years, averaging around 15% and rising sometimes to over 50%.

    Industry X is a duopoly with two businesses owning about 2 in 3 retail customers. Add in the 3rd and 4th largest market shareholders, and between them they have 84% of us on their books.

    Here’s how 3 of the 4 biggest providers fared in recent results announcements:

    • Provider A’s net profits in the relevant division were up 534% compared to 6 months ago. Prices were up 12-18% depending on the product category.
    • Provider B’s net profit was down because of a $304million asset write-down but on a like-for-like basis, profit was up 85% and cash earnings up 76% over 6 months. Prices were up 12.5%, “the strongest in nine years”.
    • Provider C’s annual net profit in Australia and the region was up 131%. Prices were up 12.5% too.

    If you know which Industry I’m writing about, you probably read the business news, because none of these results made page one.

    It’s general insurance – home and car insurance mostly – and Providers A, B and C are Suncorp (home of AAMI, GIO, Apia), IAG (home to NRMA, CGU, SGIO & RACV) and QBE. 

    I’ve posted recently about the fact their profits are rising at the same time as their premiums and some of the stories I’ve heard in response would be hard to believe if I didn’t have the documents to prove them.

    @joelmgibson

    This is gobsmacking. Credit to Michelle Bowes @News.com.au for spotting it. #moneysaving #costofliving #longervideos #insurance #aami #gio #suncorp

    ♬ original sound – Joel Gibson

     

    One car insurance customer was charged $545.55 by Bingle (part of Suncorp group) in 2022, only to be asked for $1225.38 upon renewal in December 2023. That’s a 125% increase despite no claims or changes to the cover.

    insurance premiums

    Insurance premiums u. Bingle is Suncorp

    A couple from St Helen’s Park, Sydney, had their home and contents insurance with Suncorp. In 2022 it was $1705. In 2023 it was $2975, a 74% increase. In 2024 it was $4064, a 36% increase. That would have been a 138% increase over two years with no major changes to the cover. When they complained, Suncorp reduced the quote to $3150, which was still $750 more than a competitor quote. They’re planning to switch.

    insurance

    insurance

    insurance

    General insurance premium rocket. Suncorp

    Speaking of big stories that didn’t make it out of the business pages, the general insurance industry is also the subject of what I call “the biggest scandal you’ve probably never heard of”.

    The biggest scandal you’ve never heard of

    Last year ASIC fined NRMA a record $40 million for jacking up the base premiums of customers before applying so-called “loyalty discounts” so that they wouldn’t drop too far. It also took SGIO, SGIC and RACV to court for the same.

    The watchdog also forced 11 insurers to refund $815 million in over-charged premiums to 5.6 million customers as a result of widespread pricing failures in the industry over the past decade or so. 

    While there’s a parliamentary inquiry now underway into the insurance industry, it’s focussed on whether they paid claims in a timely fashion after the catastrophic east coast floods of recent years. Pricing is a footnote and over-charging doesn’t rate a mention. 

    How do they get away with it?

    I’ve been tracking the cost of living on a daily basis in Australia for 12 years and I’ve never understood why insurance companies are such a protected species. Their prices are a black box and they face very little scrutiny – two facts that may be connected.

    While fuel retailers have to post their prices on 3-metre roadside signs and also now on government apps, supermarkets have to post unit prices on every shelf or website, and energy retailers must publish every publicly-available offer on a government website, insurance pricing is a private matter between customer and provider.

    Because everyone’s premium rises on a different day of the year, there’s no spotlight in the way there is for health insurers (on April 1) or energy retailers (on July 1). 

    Too complicated, you wouldn’t understand, just pay

    And there isn’t even a comprehensive comparison website that carries most of the brands in the market because the big companies refuse to cooperate with comparison businesses, claiming insurance is too complicated to be compared on the basis of price.

    Never mind that mobile and NBN plans, energy plans, credit cards and mortgages are all subject to comparison – insurance, they say, is different.

    Never mind that some insurances ARE subjected to comparison on government websites, such as Compulsory Third Party insurance for NSW drivers, and that there’s been no downside for consumers. 

    “We’re different”

    Regular car and home insurance are different, according to those who sell most of it, and cannot be compared in the same way.

    But maybe this year will be the year that the insurance industry is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    As Coles and Woolworths have learnt the hard way, you can only squeeze the lemon for so long before it leaves a bitter aftertaste. When customers cause a big enough fuss, reform becomes a vote-winner for populist politicians and you can find yourself fighting back a push for new red tape.

    One of the fiercest critics of Coles and Woolies this year was former ACCC boss Allan Fels, in his price gouging report for the ACTU. While groceries got a lot of the headlines, Insurance was the 2nd most complained-about product in his review.

    About a decade ago, Fels made enemies of the Big Insurance lobby in Australia when he was appointed as the NSW Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor, tasked with making sure insurance companies didn’t gouge customers when applying a tax to premiums.

    Fels finds, falls

    But Fels went off the reservation and started looking into insurance pricing, comparing 11 different brands and what they quoted for insurance on a hypothetical home and contents in various locations.

    He found premiums sometimes differed by over $1000 and that the difference between prices for new customers and old, loyal customers differed by an average of 25% and sometimes as much as 34%. The industry lobbied the state government for him to be removed from the post.

    Maybe he was a man before his time. Now there are now multiple overseas examples of insurance pricing reforms that consumers, pollies and shit-stirrers like me can point to as evidence that there’s nothing inherently unique about insurance and it should be subject to the same price scrutiny as other industries. 

    Ban ‘price walking’

    In the UK, for example, “price walking” has been banned since January 2022: car and home insurers cannot charge renewing customers more than they charge new customers.

    In the months afterwards, renewal prices dropped but so did car insurance switching rates, down from 41% to 35%.

    Finance guru Martin Lewis says the results were a mixed bag: “Some firms have simply boosted prices for all … The ‘same price for both’ rule is channel specific [so an online customer can still pay more than a phone customer] … [and] Many firms own more than one brand. They may aim to win new business via new brands, leaving existing brands at higher prices”. But it’s a start. 

    The next big opportunity for consumers will be the consumer data right, a new secure way to share your data with other providers and comparison services so they can help you shop around. It is due to be extended to insurance in 2024 or 2025 but the industry is already pushing back.

    Insurance pricing reform is now happening in other (more) advanced economies because the cost of living has made it unstoppable. Why not here?

    I’ve started a petition at change.org calling for Australian governments to stop insurance companies from over-charging Australians. You can sign it here.

    Independent beer-makers captive to liquor majors, supermarket duopoly

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Big Sugar, Big Pharma: Sydney University compromised by academic research breach

    Sydney University and Nova Nordisk

    Sydney University has stonewalled claims of failing to police serious conflicts of interest in its academic research which may have benefited Big Sugar and Big Pharma companies such as Novo Nordisk. Who knew what and when, asks Andrew Gardiner.

    The veil of secrecy around Jennie Brand-Miller – star nutrition academic and for years the face of low glycemic index (‘low GI’) diets – has been lifted, and it’s far from flattering. After months of obstruction, MWM can now confirm that ‘GI Jennie,’ as she’s affectionately known, has been married to John Miller (for decades until 2013, the medical director at Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Australasia) from the late 1980s through to at least 2017.

    Why does this matter? Economist and bane of Big Pharma and Sydney University, Rory Robertson, believes GI Jennie – who popularised sugary, high-carb (“low GI”) diets as somehow lowering blood sugar – helped cause a “public health disaster” of high blood sugar, obesity and rampant type two diabetes (T2D) among Australians, in turn generating a market for Novo Nordisk, the leading seller of insulin used to treat T2D.

    Robertson insists that dozens of Brand-Miller’s ‘peer-reviewed’ published papers are based on erroneous and/or misconstrued data and that other, more credible studies associate sugary, high-carb diets with high blood sugar, obesity and T2D, stating that:

    it has been known at the highest level of medical science and by competent GPs for a century that no-sugar, low-carbohydrate diets “reverse” or “fix” T2D.

    A conflict of interest?

    The central point of this investigation is not that Brand-Miller acted in bad faith but that her employer Sydney University, despite being notified many times by Robertson, failed to ensure that the academic complied with university policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, namely her close, very close association with a company which derived financial benefits from selling diabetes medication.

    Brand-Miller did not declare what was a serious conflict of interest over the 2011 paper at the centre of this controversy, The Australian Paradox, despite enjoying what Robertson calls “a major multi-decade boost to her household income from her life/financial partner (John Miller’s) high-level employment driving Novo Nordisk’s diabetes drug sales.”

    MWM is not suggesting the Millers have acted unethically or allowed any personal relationship to affect their professional work, but it should be noted that Novo Nordisk, the 23rd most valuable company in the world with a profit of $US22.24B for the year ending March 2023, appears not to have been displeased with the scholarly work.

    For his part, John Miller also failed to openly acknowledge his marriage to Brand-Miller – despite clear conflict of interest implications – when it was his turn to write a UNSW PhD dissertation at UNSW in 1989. Miller was already working for Novo Nordisk’s predecessor at the time, and his PhD was co-supervised by a Dr J C Brand.

    That’s right, readers: in a triumph of arms-length academic integrity, John Miller’s supervisor was none other than his spouse, Jennie Brand-Miller. MWM confirmed the pair’s collaboration and marriage via documents helpfully available online (the latter has since mysteriously vanished from the University of Sydney’s website).

    “Amazingly, John Miller acquired a UNSW PhD and ‘expert’ status under the (hidden) ‘supervision’ of his own wife while embedded in the Human Nutrition Unit at the University of Sydney, with the Unit’s taxpayer-funded facilities gifted to him by his wife’s boss, Stewart Truswell – notably, the main scientific author for decades of our influential Australian Dietary Guidelines – all while Miller was employed by CSL-Novo, soon to be Novo Nordisk Australasia,” Robertson told MWM.

    Robertson says the Millers’ union has long been ‘common knowledge’ around the corridors of Sydney University’s Human Nutrition Unit and the Charles Perkins (medical research) Centre (the latter subsumed the former from 2012), yet the university appears to have given Brand-Miller what he calls:

    a decades-long free pass to hide her links to Novo Nordisk and its predecessors, allowing her to carefully exclude it from conflict-of-interest disclosures she published in hundreds of formal diet-and-health papers, in clear violation of university policy.

    “The global nutrition, scientific and medical communities are still haplessly unaware that Brand-Miller’s sugary ‘low-GI’ diet research was conducted under the cloud of the Novo Nordisk conflict,” he added.

    A (sugar) scandal in the making?

    With their marriage confirmed, we can sum up what appears to be a hitherto insoluble headache for public health, government waste and academic integrity. Jennie Brand-Miller: (a) popularised sugary, high-carb “low GI” diets, (b) wrongly, in the eyes of many, exonerated sugar as a key driver of Australia’s diabetes/obesity epidemic, and (c) may have derived a financial benefit as she and her husband made money from the latter’s work in a company which sells the (insulin) T2D drug treatment.

    This could turn out to be a massive scandal … if anyone will listen, says Robertson.

    He wants a new, independent inquiry into Sydney University academics’ links to Novo Nordisk, claiming they’re a party to years of scientific malpractice that significantly benefits Big Pharma and the sugar industry. He persists in the face of what seems like systematic stonewalling from the University, which MWM also experienced when researching this story.

    Confronted with documents confirming the Millers’ marriage and financial relationship, the university’s media office had a one-line response: “I’ve checked, and our statement from last year stands,” media manager Rachel Fergus wrote. That earlier statement, sent to MWM last July, was that “for over a decade (Robertson) has made … public claims about a number of our researchers and their scientific work (and) any matters have been appropriately, repeatedly and thoroughly examined … with no evidence of any misconduct found”.

    Perhaps the lack of action by the university is where the misconduct lies. Is it not the responsibility of esteemed public institutions to ensure their researchers adhere to ethical and compliance guidelines?

    Sydney University ‘examination’

    One wonders how Sydney University can claim it “thoroughly examined” the matter when startling documentary evidence of massive conflicts was right under its proverbial nose. Earlier recommendations following a 2014 inquiry by Professor Robert Clark – that Brand-Miller’s Australian Paradox be “sent to the shredder” and replaced by a new paper prepared for publication, “in consultation with the Faculty, that specifically addresses and clarifies the key factual issues examined in this Inquiry” – were not meaningfully addressed. And there was little media attention.

    Neither Brand-Miller nor her bosses ever appeared to do what Clark recommended: “The new paper should be written in a constructive matter that respects issues relating to the data in the Australian Paradox paper raised by the Complainant”

    Robertson says the stonewalling of MWM and other media over the past decade is part of a strategy to “starve the issue of oxygen” and keep it away from the pages and bulletins of our fourth estate. The strategy has worked: after two brief flurries of interest from mainstream outlets years ago, media interest has dropped off a cliff, with the exception of MWM.

    ‘Former fattie’ Rory Robertson ups the ante on Sydney Uni’s connections with Big Sugar, Big Pharma

    Even the modest feat of confirming the Millers’ union was like navigating a maze for MWM, and little wonder. The promotion of what some see as disastrous nutritional advice has spawned a multi-million dollar industry in academia, government and the private sector.

    “Over the past decade, three successive (Sydney University) vice-chancellors have accepted research grants of around $400 million per annum from Canberra – much of it funding studies which asked the wrong nutritional and health questions,” Robertson told MWM.

    That’s a lot of money that would dry up if the truth were widely known.

    Robertson said Brand-Miller’s co-dependent ties with senior faculty members at the university’s Charles Perkins Medical Research Centre further drove this circling of the Camperdown wagons. “When she thrived, they thrived; it’s a cabal dating back to the 1980s,” he told MWM.

    Media ambivalence on what could turn out to be a massive scandal is a complicated subject to explain, although it can be noted that the university is a large-scale advertiser on commercial outlets and that Mark Scott, once the ABC’s managing director/editor-in-chief but now the Vice Chancellor of Sydney University, briefly helped along media interest in Robertson’s quest in 2016.

    Moreover, Big Sugar – from cereals to soft drink and sweets manufacturers – are among the biggest advertisers in commercial media. Robertson also points out significant commercial conflicts of interest on the part of at least one leading health and medical journalist.

    At the end of the day, what Robertson calls the “sheer scale of this scandal” and the involvement – wittingly or not – of “heavy hitters” at the university and beyond may be forestalling the “critical mass” required for it to get the full forensic treatment. Faced with such seemingly immovable obstacles, others might toss in the towel, but Robertson is nothing if not determined.

    “Why do I persist?” Robertson said, “I suspect it’s because my mother and her two sisters, and my own sister, were all country nurses, and I grew up in remote locations, often with Indigenous kids (who now) bear the brunt of this T2D plague – the amputations, the people going blind.“

    It may be the biggest scandal in Australian medical history. People don’t need Novo Nordisk’s insulin; they just need a low carb diet.

    Vindication: dietitians cut ties with sugar lobby

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Calls for international criminal court to end ‘impunity’ for environmental crimes

    Campaigners say activities leading to severe environmental harm usually also violate human rights

    The international criminal court (ICC) has been urged to start investigating and prosecuting individuals who harm the environment.

    Academics, lawyers and campaigners from around the world have sent expert opinions to the court outlining what they call its current regime of “impunity” for serious environmental crimes.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Kenyan Del Monte farm seeks human rights manager after claims of violence

    Exclusive: new role created after Guardian uncovered allegations against company’s security guards

    A vast Del Monte pineapple farm in Kenya that supplies most British supermarkets is advertising for a human rights manager to address its “human rights challenges” in the wake of allegations of killings and violence by its security guards.

    The job advert says the candidate will need to “develop a detailed action plan to address human rights challenges in the workplace and in surrounding communities”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • WGEA’s push for gender pay gap transparency

    The term “gender pay gap” has not exactly been shooting the lights out, according to Google, but could WGEA’s pay transparency campaign be the approach that changes all that?

    Mary Wooldridge, head of Australian government group Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), has been leading an historic push to make gender pay gap transparency a topic that goes beyond female altruism and uses social awareness to compel a largely male-led business landscape into progressive action.

    “The objective of publishing gender pay gaps is for employers to have an extra incentive, in terms of having a plan, taking action and improving their gender equality,”

    Ms Wooldridge said.

    On February 27 this year, WGEA took the highly anticipated step of publishing the gender pay gaps of nearly 5000 private companies with 100 or more employees.

    These companies have had nearly 12 months to spruce up their gender pay gap efforts following amendments to the Gender Equality Act. That includes media employers; the gender pay gap is a key concern for Women in Media members, with 85% calling for gender pay gap audits, according to the 2023 Industry Insight Report.

     

     

    To help fuel interest in what has been revealed about the gender pay gap, and to grow public engagement with WGEA’s Data Explorer website, media coverage is paramount.

    The publication of employer gender pay gaps in late February brought significant media attention and made the issue front page news.

    It also highlighted excuses companies gave for the gender pay gap, including paying men more overtime, and having a shortage of women within workplaces.

    We also saw underperforming companies pledge to act, which helped shift the overall conversation from ‘what is the gender pay gap’? to ‘what are companies doing about it’?

    “The media is absolutely critical because of the scrutiny that follows and the public accountability that’s associated with it,”  Ms Wooldridge said.

    “We certainly hope that’s the catalyst for continued action internally, to improve the experience of employees on a day-to-day basis,” she said.

    Companies within industries that typically paid high overtime, allowances and bonuses, for example construction and financial services, had the biggest gender pay gaps.

    The justification, which for some was contained in supplementary employer statements attached to their data, was that the results were partly driven by men being more likely to be able to hold the roles that attracted those payments.

    Standout laggards highlighted included Morgan Stanley, with total media pay for men 48.2% higher than for women, while the gap was 42.7% at UBS; 42.5% at Barrenjoey; and 41.8% at Bank of America.

    Image Source: WGEA

    Image Source: WGEA

    Publication of the data is part of a long-term plan, necessary because the outlook for gender equality isn’t great.

    Economic equality scorecard, the Financy Women’s Index, estimates our best case scenario for achieving workplace gender equality in Australia is sitting around 27 years.

    WGEA’s gender pay gap transparency push was inspired by the UK Government’s Equalities Office UK program, which has for many years been unashamedly motivating companies to salary report or be named and shamed on their gender pay gaps.

    The UK’s approach to salary reporting has helped ensure 100% compliance in its first two years of program implementation and is credited with stimulating public debate on the gender pay gap.

    As it stands, WGEA has a 7% non-compliance rate on gender pay gap reporting according to a 2024 gender pay gap report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Despite this Wooldridge – a former Liberal government minister – has perceptively reframed the media narrative away from being a witch hunt, to encouraging media to inspire action and drive positive change.

    The tactic is strategically important for Wooldridge, as she balances the need to peak and grow public awareness, allay employer fears about providing the Agency with sensitive data and ultimately improve gender equality in the workforce.

    As it stands, the term, “gender pay gap”, attracts 1-10,000 average monthly Google Planner searches in Australia, compared to “job search” at 100,000 plus. The hope is that by increasing public interest, the two might one day go hand in hand for anyone –  but women in particular –  researching their next career move.

    Picture at top: Mary Wooldridge, CEO of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). 

    The post WGEA’s push for gender pay gap transparency appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Putting Human Rights Values into Action: Reflections & Insights from Essex’s Leadership Lab

    By Audrey Olivier Last year, I joined the Human Rights Leadership Lab with Liz Griffin at the Human Rights Centre, Essex University. It caught my attention as it is the first course which I have come across on leadership specifically tailored to the needs of human rights activists and professionals and has a central focus on values. Over the […]

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.

  • TVNZ plans to axe Fair Go, Sunday, midday and night news in restructure

    RNZ News

    Television New Zealand is proposing to axe its long-running and award-winning current affairs programme Sunday, hosted by veteran broadcaster Miriama Kamo.

    It is part of plans to cut dozens of jobs at the public broadcaster.

    Staff were learning which programmes will be affected at a series of meetings today.

    TVNZ said a proposal had been presented to Sunday staff which could result in cancellation of the programme.

    The show was named Best Current Affairs Programme at the Voyager Media Awards and the New Zealand Television Awards last year.

    It first aired in 2002 and has run for more than two decades, showcasing a mix of New Zealand stories and reports from overseas.

    One award-winning investigation looked into the 2008 Chinese poisoned milk scandal, and how patients were treated at Porirua Hospital.

    Veteran journalists like John Hudson, Janet McIntyre and Ian Sinclair have contributed to the show.

    News bulletins may be canned
    RNZ understands the 1News Midday and Tonight bulletins may also be canned, and consumer affairs programme Fair Go could to be cut too.

    Its understood four out of 10 roles at youth platform Re: News are set to go — head of Re: News, head of content, production manager, and a journalist.

    TVNZ's Sunday show
    TVNZ’s Sunday show . . . named Best Current Affairs Programme at the Voyager Media Awards and the New Zealand Television Awards last year. Image: TVNZ screenshot APR

    Its understood four out of 10 roles at youth platform Re: News are set to go — head of Re: News, head of content, production manager, and a journalist.

    The remaining five staff will have a change in reporting line, reporting to TVNZ digital news and content general manager Veronica Schmidt.

    RNZ has been told there will be a shift away from social media in a bid to drive more traffic to the Re: News website. Its documentary series funded by NZ On Air is also set to be canned.

    The digital media platform was launched in 2017 as a current affairs platform aimed at audiences under-served by mainstream news.

    It produces documentary videos, articles and podcasts particularly relevant to youth, Māori, Pasifika, rainbow communities, and migrant and regional audiences.

    The platform won four awards at last year’s Voyager Media Awards, including best news, current affairs or specialist publication; video journalist of the year; best video documentary series; and best original podcast — seasonal/serial.

    On average, Re: News receives more than a million video views each month.

    Difficult choices
    TVNZ chief executive Jodi O’Donnell said in a statement that difficult choices had to be made to ensure the broadcaster remained sustainable.

    It comes just a week after rival Newshub announced it had proposed to axe its entire news operation of 300 staff.

    A hui for all news and current affairs staff is due to be held at 1pm, following the individual programme meetings.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, speaking at a press conference in Whangārei, said he was concerned about reports of job cuts and that it was a “pretty tough time if you’re a TVNZ employee”.

    Luxon said consumers are consuming news in different ways and advertising and revenue models are changing.

    He said it was a pretty tough time for people working in the media but he had travelled the country and many other sectors were doing it tough.

    Media companies needed to evolve and innovate in order to adapt, he said.

    Fair Go
    Fair Go is one of New Zealand’s longest running and most popular television series.

    The consumer affairs show, which investigates complaints from viewers, first aired in April 1977 and is just shy of its 47th birthday.

    During a 2021 interview with RNZ’s Afternoons programme, original host and creator Brian Edwards said he was inspired by a BBC programme called That’s Life.

    “One particular segment was on consumers and I think that was the germ of the idea, that we could do a programme in New Zealand where we could look at protecting people right there in their normal daily lives from rip offs and scams by various people and it it just soared from the beginning. I mean, it was tremendous,” Edwards said.

    “I suppose my main function was to grill the villains, and because I’m a really quite unpleasant person, this fit in my my personality very well.”

    Well-known presenter Kevin Milne hosted the show for almost three decades, from 1983 to 2010.

    “It was beautifully set up, really, and it didn’t require any change as much and still hasn’t, you know, 44 years later,” he told Afternoons during the same interview.

    ‘Good deal of cynicism’
    “I remember that there was a good deal of cynicism in the early days from the newsroom journalists who thought that because there was an element of entertainment on the show that you couldn’t call it real journalism, which was nonsense because it ended up leading the way in terms of investigative journalism.”

    The show broke new ground, Milne said.

    “It’s hard to believe now that back then, at the time when Brian set up those programmes, most broadcasters never named names. I can remember now hearing news stories which could say a well-known department store in Lambton Quay appeared in court this morning. No mention [of name], and when Fair Go started up, it was decided it would name names.”

    Edwards said that was an “absolutely critical” aspect of the show.

    “The thing would have been pointless I think, if you couldn’t name names. The thing was to expose the wrong doers if you like . . . what was the point in in doing that if you couldn’t name names?

    “And I think we probably, together, our team, won some battles there and being able to do that. It took a while and I think there was a degree of nervousness by the broadcaster and eventually it turned out all right.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Juiced on market power. Independent beer-makers stymied by liquor majors, supermarket duopoly

    CUB and Lion

    Visiting the local pub or bottle shop may create an impression of beer drinkers spoilt for choice. But the variety of offerings is increasingly controlled by the duelling duopolies of producers and retailers drunk on their market power. It’s Coles and Woolworths again. And it’s prices. Zacharias Szumer investigates.

    As inquiries run by both the Senate and the competition watchdog are putting their magnifying glasses on the power of Australia’s supermarket duopoly, MWM is taking a closer look at Australia’s liquor market.

    Kicking things off, this correspondent recently got on the beers. Which is to say: he spoke with people in Australia’s independent brewing industry to understand how massive duopolies are taking a huge gulp of the profits at all stages of the supply chain.

    But let’s have a few at the pub first. Even here at our friendly local, it might be hard to escape the influence of a major duopoly: Carlton & United Breweries (CUB) and Lion. According to the managing director of Coopers, CUB’s got about 50 per cent of the market and Lion about 30. Both are owned by Japanese companies: respectively, Asahi and Kirin. Coopers is a distant third.

    A bevvy of nefarious tactics

    Brewers often have contracts with pubs to get their beer on tap. The two companies have managed to “lock at least 85 percent of beer taps in the country,” according to a recent budget submission by the Independent Brewers Association (IBA).

    They also use various nefarious techniques to limit choice and sales on the taps they don’t directly contract – or at least that’s what your correspondent has heard.

    For example, if one of the big players has an India Pale Ale (IPA), they will seek contract terms that ensure it’s the only IPA on tap.

    Sometimes it’s just “knowing that a brand is strong and excluding it,” an industry insider, who asked not to be named, told MWM.

    Beer producers marketshare

    SOURCE: Independent Brewers Association 2024-25 Budget Submission.

    Financial rebates offered to pubs for selling a certain quantity of beer from the big suppliers also create an incentive structure that “throttle[s] the sales of the independent beer”, the insider said.

    To hit the rebate target, pubs will price independent beers ‘artificially higher’ or order fewer kegs, so they just happen to run out at 9 pm on a Friday night, pushing customers to order beers owned by the duopoly.

    While not going into detail, Kylie Lethbridge, CEO of the IBA, said the peak body had been hearing from its members about various “exclusionary practices.”

    “That is definitely very much what we have been told and what we’re being told more and more lately,” Lethbridge said about financial rebates leading to underhand tactics.

    The big two in booze retail

    After a pint or two at the pub, we head to the bottle shop, where another two players have dominant slices of the market.

    On one hand is Coles, which owns Liquorland, Vintage Cellars and First Choice. On the other, Endeavour, which was spun-off by Woolworths in 2021, and owns Dan Murphy’s, BWS and the delivery service Jimmy Brings.

    While the demerger may have helped cleanse the Fresh Food People’s hands of vice, Woolies has stayed in the cut, remaining Endeavour’s fourth-largest shareholder with a roughly 9 per cent stake.

    Together Endeavour and Coles account for around 55 per cent of the market. If you throw in the other two major retailers – Aldi and Metcash (which owns IGA Liquor, The Bottle-O, Thirsty Camel, Porters and Cellarbrations) – the four companies’ share is over 70 per cent.

    .Because of the power they have” the big retailers “can dictate price.

    Kylie Lethbridge, CEO of IBA.

    Share of liquor retail market

    Source: Woolworths/Endeavour 2021 demerger booklet.

    Both Endeavour and Coles have come under scrutiny in recent years for their expansion of home-brand alcohol products branded as boutique or independently produced.

    While a recent Four Corners episode focused on misleadingly marketed boutique wine, the beer industry has also seen a proliferation of “pseudo-craft beers”, as the IBA’s budget submission calls them.

    At Coles-owned outlets you might have seen brands such as Tinnes, while at BWS or Dan Murphy’s you’ll encounter Zytho or the interestingly named Crony pale ale.

    The insider told MWM that the big two will essentially seek to replicate an independent product that’s already on the market, both in recipe and branding, but sell it at a cheaper price.

    They also keep any details about being a ‘home brand’ of sorts hush-hush. It’s not illegal, just a little bit naughty.

    What about the liquor! | The West Report

    Plans for independent brews get shelved

    Endeavour puts out most of their ‘private label’ booze through a subsidiary called ‘Pinnacle Drinks’. In 2023, Pinnacle launched 550 new products. The year before, it was 479.

    It’s an “incredible number”, IBA board member Richard Adamson told parliament last year, and it’s created a struggle for independent brewers to get their products on shelves. He added:

    Anecdotally, we’re seeing that one in five to one in four shelf spaces for beer is now one of their private-label brands, so we are getting squeezed out of the major retailers’ shelf space at the same time,

    Appearing the day before Adamson, Coopers’ managing director told parliament that, in opposition to the big two, independent retailers were more likely to let “consumer preference dictate what is on the shelves.”

    Retailer owned private label brands

    Two examples of retailer-owned private label brands: Endeavour/Pinnacle’s Big Things Brewing Co. ginger beer and Liquorland’s Smithy’s.

    Because private-label brands have the financial might of major corporations behind them, they can also dish out far more dosh on marketing and promotions.

    For instance, the Coles-owned Tinnies beer brand recently signed a lucrative sponsorship deal with Cricket Australia.

    Both Coles and Endeavour-owned brands also have free access to detailed sales data from their parent companies, while independent brewers might have to shell out roughly $150,000 for subscription services to access this data, the insider said, although such services only provide “what the retailers are willing to share.”

    Competition canned

    Perhaps by now, we’re sick of all these big players throwing their weight around. So, let’s head to our local craft beer brewery.

    But here, too, before the beer even leaves the factory floor, independents face another duopoly, as only two companies in Australia make printed aluminium cans: Visy and Orora.

    These two “behemoths”, as the insider called them, also dominate the cardboard production that encases slabs and six-packs.

    Orora is owned by the Japanese giant Nippon. While Visy is owned by the family of Australia’s third-richest man Anthony Pratt, who regularly donates massive sums of money to both political parties.

    There’ve been “numerous cases” where the big two have “post-contract, changed terms or changed pricing on people. It’s been pretty difficult,” the insider said.

    IBA’s Lethbridge also explained how some of these contract changes make it particularly hard for small brewers.

    Peter Dutton’s angry crusades. You never know what you’re gonna get.

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • Gig Guide: NSW appoints Information and Privacy Commissioner

    New South Wales’ new Information and Privacy Commissioner is Rachel McCallum, who moves over from her role at the NSW Electoral Commission. Ms McCallum, who will take up her three-year term on Monday, replaces Elizabeth Tydd, the federal government’s new Freedom of Information Commissioner earlier this month. She brings with her around 30 years’ worth…

    The post Gig Guide: NSW appoints Information and Privacy Commissioner appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Betting London to a Bricklet: colourful Giuseppe Porcelli strives for ASX share market hero status again

    Giuseppe Porcelli, Lakeba Group

    Getting control of an ASX company is the holy grail for an entrepreneur; it means deep pools of other people’s capital to capitalise upon. So it is that colourful tech venturer, Giuseppe Porcelli of Lakeba Group is having his second tilt at The Boards. Michael West reports.

    Will colourful Manly entrepreneur Giuseppe Porcelli of Lakeba Group fame finally get to control a public company listed on the ASX through the back-door?

    Porcelli is no stranger to creative accounting. He somehow managed to convert a simple offshore software development business generating very little cash into an investment behemoth with “revenues” of $100m. That is if you believe the “independent valuations” that he is yet to disclose to anyone, even shareholders.

    Many even doubt that investing in businesses you control actually qualifies for this special accounting categorisation as an investment company.  After being questioned at Lakeba’s AGM in 2022 the original auditor, ASK Accounting, saw discretion as the better part of valour and soon resigned. This left the door open for PKF, a mid-tier accounting firm, to be appointed as the new auditor. The result? A dramatic revaluation of Lakeba’s investments. Downwards, of course.

    CaddyShack, CEO of the year antics and turkey sandwiches: Lakeba back in the revenue bunker

    This gives some insight into Porcelli’s apparent need to be seen as a big immigrant success story at any cost. He craves publicity as much as others crave tiramisu. His ultimate goal seems to be to head up a company listed on a public stock exchange, any public stock exchange, regardless of whether that is the best option for shareholders.

    Some years ago, Porcelli stage-managed an attempt by Lakeba, his then relatively unknown private business, to take control of Mobecom Ltd (now Gratifii Ltd), a flailing public company in the loyalty program business. His cunning plan was to sell Mobecom one of Lakeba’s early stage ventures called Paid by Coins and build some tech in exchange for a LOT of Mobecom shares.

    An extraordinary number given the very early stage of Paid by Coins and its relatively minuscule revenues. So extraordinary, that the deal was eventually unwound completely as being contrary to the best interests of Mobecom shareholders. This was in no small part due to the concerns of the then incoming Mobecom CEO, Iain Dunstan, who clearly did not see the same value in Paid by Coins as was claimed by Porcelli and the previous CEO of Mobecom that was replaced by Dunstan. Deal dead. Strike 1.

    Smooth Talker: Lakeba entrepreneur Giuseppe Porcelli takes tech punters for a rude ride

    Interestingly, even though this crafty deal was unwound before it was fully consummated, Porcelli still claims it as an exit on his Lakeba website in an apparent attempt to show a semblance of success in his 10-year old “venture creation” business. In line with its tag line, Lakeba has done plenty of “Conceiving”, a bunch of “Creating” but not so much “Commercialising”.

    The reality, according to several long suffering shareholders, is that there has been no return whatsoever on their investment despite regular promises from Porcelli that “this will be our year”. Promises that are now as thin as the finest Italian prosciutto. It seems that the hefty revenues previously claimed by Lakeba as the result of startlingly opaque increases in valuations of its ventures has not converted to any actual returns. Like oral contracts, paper returns aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

    AFR and The Oz are onside

    The Mobecom fiasco has also led to some good old-fashioned litigation by several shareholders of Lakeba who claim they were misled regarding Lakeba’s revenues when investing back in 2019. Apart from the distraction and expense of litigation, a successful outcome for the shareholders could lead to others making similar claims against Lakeba.

    In any case, following the Mobecom “deal”, Porcelli tried a new tack. Build a digital bank by acquiring a tiny credit union that already had the banking licences required. A new Lakeba venture, Ezi Financial Services Pty Ltd, was set up and capital raised at a lofty valuation to build the tech and buy the licence.

    Other more qualified organisations with much deeper pockets had also tried to launch a digital bank and failed, but Porcelli pitched that he had the secret sauce that could pull off this minor miracle.

    Unfortunately for the investors, the deal with Maleny Credit Union also fell apart relatively quickly despite the loud trumpeting of Lakeba’s supposed ability to build the underlying technology required to turn a quaint one-branch credit union into a world-class digital bank. The result? The Maleny Board lost faith in Porcelli’s abilities and pulled the pin. Strike 2.

    Go forward a few years and here we are again. A recent announcement from another public company, Domacom Ltd, indicates that they are in discussions with Lakeba to acquire Bricklet, another one of its controlled ventures. Bricklet has promised to change the property market by letting people buy fractions of properties, wineries, farms, anything, but it seems the market is still somewhat dubious about it all.

    Like the old timeshare model, it’s easy to buy but hard to sell when you want to cash out. Not to say the fractional model doesn’t have a place, just that it has proven hard to convince people it is the best place to park their hard-earned dollars.

    Domacom is in the same market, and looking at its share price it seems to be having a similar problem getting punters to buy into the concept. It has a current market cap of just $4.8m with a share price that has dropped dropped 83% in the last year to just 0.011c. So who is saving who? Or are they both clinging to a one-man life-raft?

    So what’s the proposed deal? Well it looks like Bricklet will lend a chunk of cash to Domacom to solve its current cashflow problems, then invest in Domacom following which Domacom will “consider” buying Bricklet.

    Given the very early stage of this deal, details are scant. However, you can bet London to a Brick(let) that the acquisition will be via a share swap so that control of Domacom will shift to Lakeba. That’s the Porcelli Way. It is looking unlikely to be a cash acquisition given Domacom is proposing to borrow money from Bricklet to pay its debts. It’s looking more like a cheap back-door listing just like the failed attempt on Mobecom.

    Whether this deal goes ahead depends on double due diligence. First, Bricklet has to check out Domacom before lending it money, and then Domacom has to check out Bricklet to see if it wants to buy it. We await the result with bated breath, as do the Lakeba shareholders who are no doubt hoping for some sort of liquidity event after all this time.

    AI is the latest, AFR on board

    Bricklet has had its own share of problems. A recent attempt to partner up with a business packaging up farms for sale as “bricklets” on the Bricklet platform. “We had the product and just needed a platform to manage the process” said Brian Sher of The Family Farm.

    “Bricklet seemed like the answer but our legal advice was that it was probably operating as an unregistered MIS. Even worse, we think their legal documentation made the model totally unworkable for farms, so we pulled out of the deal”.

    Sher had other concerns about the way Bricklet was being managed. “We got charged all sorts of fees, including stamp duty, even though they were not properly disclosed. We totally lost faith in the platform and its management.“

    Will the due diligence of Bricklet’s business yield a positive outcome? Let’s hope Domacom’s advisors  don’t subscribe to MWM and find out about all the other dodgy dealings at Bricklet that have been reported to us (). If so, it may be strike 3 for Porcelli… Watch this space.

    Ocean view, or really a carpark view? ASX property float a tough sell

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – February 26, 2024 Trump team appeals New York judge’s $450 million ruling over Trump’s fraudulent business practices.

    Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

     

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – February 26, 2024 Trump team appeals New York judge’s $450 million ruling over Trump’s fraudulent business practices. appeared first on KPFA.


    This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Mable, the Uber of care work. Innovation or a race to the bottom?

    healtcare workers

    Digital disruption has come to the disability and aged care sectors, with mixed reviews. The digital economy and its effect on itinerant ‘gig workers’ now reaches well beyond rideshare and home delivery services. Zacharias Szumer investigates.

    Perhaps evincing a masochistic taste in literature, this correspondent recently decided to sink his teeth into the gig worker reforms subsection of the Senate inquiry report into Labor’s Closing Loopholes bill.

    While certainly not a page-turner, the section was somewhat enlivened by a detectable level of vitriol directed towards a company called Mable.

    Mable, which acts as an intermediary between care workers and their clients, incurred the committee’s wrath for insisting that it wasn’t a gig economy platform at all and thus shouldn’t be regulated alongside Uber, DoorDash and co.

    While the aforementioned rideshare and food delivery platforms engaged with the process in a “constructive” manner, the report’s authors wrote, Mable had deployed “spurious arguments” to request it be wholly carved out of the reforms.

    While it seems that Mable’s efforts weren’t totally successful, and the Fair Work Commission may still be able to impose minimum standards upon its workforce, some experts say cross-bench amendments to the bill have made it significantly harder (more on that later).

    Clear as mud: gig workers’ rights versus Uber, Deliveroo, Ola and Menulog fight for flexibility

    Horizontal marketplace or digital platform?

    Mable was launched in 2014 with a mission to “unlock productivity gains” in Australia’s aged care and disability sectors. It says it now has over 17,000 independent contractors and 22,000 clients on its platform.

    On Mable, approved aged care and disability clients and workers connect via self-made profiles. In addition to hosting this digital marketplace, Mable also provides insurance and helps process invoices, among other services.

    Unlike a service such as Uber, where the company offers a job at a certain price and a worker can either take it or leave it, Mable contractors and clients quote their own price. Although, as in any market, there’s no guarantee they’ll get it.

    Mable contractors are also paid per hour rather than per job.

    Because of these differences, Mable insisted to the Senate that it isn’t part “of the ‘gig economy’ or in any way similar to platforms in rideshare and food delivery”.

    Leaving aside the precise delineations of the ‘gig economy’, in one sense, Mable is applying a well-established gig platform business model; for the last decade, it has steadily run at a loss, aiming for expansion and market share over profitability.

    Uber, by comparison, was launched in 2009 and only became profitable in 2023.

    To stay afloat prior to profitability, such companies rely on large injections of investor finance. For instance, Mable received $100 million from one of the world’s largest private equity firms in 2021.

    Flexible contractors or overstretched digital serfs?

    Mable’s Closing Loopholes inquiry submission cited a company-commissioned YouGov survey that found “91 per cent of digital platform service providers rated their experience as ‘very good’ or ‘good’”.

    “Support providers on Mable rate their overall experience, satisfaction with hourly rate and whether they feel trusted, significantly higher than support workers employed by traditional providers,” the submission said.

    A Mable spokesperson told MWM that the company was clearly providing a desirable work opportunity as its growth was occurring at a time when “there are thousands of direct employment opportunities available in the care and support sector”.

    Several Mable contractors who appeared alongside the Health Services Union (HSU) at an October Closing Loopholes inquiry hearing painted a less rosy picture.

    One said that “Mable doesn’t check on the wellbeing of workers or provide them with feedback” and that the “occupational health and safety standards for workers were not up to the standard.” One commented that:

    There’s so much pressure to do unpaid work … You’re always under pressure, and you don’t have full control over your work.

    The HSU told the Senate that digital platform care workers earned “on average anywhere from 5 per cent to 55 per cent less than already low-paid comparable workers when platform fees and superannuation are taken into account.”

    The Senate report found that Mable “does enable workers to earn below the minimum award wage,” but Mable says its workers “earn more on average” than their counterparts in traditional employer-employee relationships and other digital platforms.

    Internet vox pops and Mable PR

    Seeking to cast a net beyond official statements and union-facilitated witnesses, MWM sought feedback about Mable on several disability and aged care-related issues on internet forums, posting in several private Facebook groups and making this Reddit post.

    Responses were mixed.

    Mable “encourages workers to bid to the bottom to get work, which after fees often result in getting paid less than formal employment,” said one worker, while another said they were “very happy with Mable.”.

    One support worker, who has now moved on to direct employment, described Mable as “a great stepping stone,” while another said the platform takes “a pretty unreasonable cut, but you can bump your rate up to cover it”.

    FYI: Mable takes a 10 per cent commission from the worker and a 7.95 per cent service fee from clients. E.g. If a contractor requests $50 per hour, they’ll get $45, while Mable will get $5 plus around $4 from the client.

    Some workers complained that payment was slow, while others said they’d had “minimal problems with payments.”

    While most comments and private messages received were critical of Mable, the disgruntled are perhaps more likely to leave reviews than those who were content.

    Shortly after posting on Reddit, MWM was contacted by Mable’s PR rep to arrange for him to hear several worker and client testimonials – all of which were, unsurprisingly, quite positive.

    Jacob Darkin, who is both a support worker and NDIS client, told MWM that his experience using the platform was overwhelmingly positive, saying that Mable offered a safe way to connect with highly skilled workers.

    “I think if they just keep listening to what people want – whether it’s support workers or people with disabilities – and try to make improvements so we benefit, then I think they’ll be a provider for a long time,” he said.

    While Darkin is a paid member of Mable’s Independent Disability Advisory Committee, he said he was offering his comments voluntarily.

    Two other support workers, one of whom is also a member of Mable’s advisory committee, also shared positive testimony about working via Mable, highlighting their preference for platform flexibility, in terms of setting one’s own wages and hours.

    A loophole for Mable?

    While Closing Loopholes finally passed in early February, cross-bench senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie secured amendments that may hinder Mable from being captured by the gig work reforms.

    “It is important that the reforms only capture those they intend to,” Pocock wrote in the senate inquiry report, but Labor’s draft bill went “far beyond the scope of capturing the gig platform courier drivers and would impact sectors like personal and aged-care providers.”

    Thanks to Pocock’s amendments, contractors on platforms like Mable will now need to satisfy at least two, rather than just one, criteria to be considered “employee-like” by the Fair Work Commission. The Mable spokesperson told MWM that

    Mable is particularly grateful to Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie for their advocacy and support.

    In response to questions from MWM, Pocock said he had met several times with Mable and similar providers during the legislative process but stressed that his amendments were not sought on their behalf, saying that the changes were “requested by every peak employer body”, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia.

    He also said the amendments were not intended to get “personal and aged-care providers excluded” and stressed that there was still enough regulatory wiggle room for the government to ensure companies like Mable were covered if it so desired.

    The HSU, Labor sources and Mable itself also told MWM that, in their opinion, Pocock’s amendments didn’t clearly let platforms like Mable off the regulatory hook.

    HSU acting national secretary Tim Jacobson told MWM that Mable workers clearly “experience low bargaining power and are subject to significant amounts of control in the way they perform their work,” which are two of the required criteria.

    However, Dr Fiona Macdonald, industrial and social policy director at the Centre for Future Work, said it was

    difficult to see how care and support workers engaged by individual consumers” would satisfy the increased requirements,

    “A worker could be considered to have some authority over the performance of their work and to have some bargaining power in relation to the services contract, as this contract would be between the individual worker and an individual consumer,” she said.

    As a result, the amended “legislation may fail to provide protections for the most vulnerable workers using gig care and support platforms”, said McDonald, who authored a 2023 report arguing that the “gigification” of care work undermined workforce sustainability and gender equality.

    Uber and Google – how PwC got them to dud Australia of billions

    This post was originally published on Michael West.